New FlightScope Mevo+ (MERGED)

[3_Jack_Par]

32 minutes ago, FAbb said:

Who all is definitely planning to upgrade to the pro package?

 

I'm on the fence.  I just got my unit this month, and am totally enjoying it for indoor wedge and iron practice.  I'm not sure how much value it'll add to my practice, for $900.  If I was a teacher, or fitter, it seems like a no-brainer.

I'm probably going to do it, because one of the big reasons I bought one was to help to monitor my practice, especially because I just started taking lessons with Monte, and I have found that with previous times working with instructors, feedback from a monitor about club path and face to path can be very helpful in understanding how various things I'm working on affect what the club and face are doing coming into impact. Plus, descent angle is a useful metric for club testing and tweaking settings.

[Dan13]

I do think I will purchase. Sounds like Uneekor is maybe a year out with a $3-5k camera based PLM. Other PLMs will continue to improve but in my mind for $2700 all in the only real limitation the unit will have is spin axis indoors with off center hits. This is contingent on Flightscope officially recognizing the RCT ball so spin and subsequently carry is accurate for all clubs (driver) in limited flight situations. Having club path and face to path will definitely make it more productive to practice with.

[Exactice808]

Well I am going to be that guy, I am leaning on NO right now.  The current setup in its current form outside of getting the GOSH DARN Putting working... The additional club data points wont change much for me.

 

Dont teach and dont get paid to golf. So $1,800 is my sweet spot.

[Daniel Eason]

I won't be upgraded for a while to Pro Package. 

 

Too early for me.

 

I do want to see how Fusion tracking goes and if it address issues ive had.

 

BTW got a message from FS today, they want me 8 feet behind the ball for outdoors (So why support 7 ffs) 

 

 

[jho786]

Im going to get it.  I was one of the early purchasers of the Mevo+ and have loved it ever since.  I have a pretty interference free setup in my garage and love hitting balls and working on my game.  It's original club measuring features were pretty awesome to me and really helped me practice, plus when I bring it to my club's range outdoors, it's phenomenal.  

 

The new club data is a huge help and I like getting data that an X3 or TM4 provides without having to spend another $50/hr at a simulator place.  Assuming that the club data is accurate, which when I go use a TM4 at a facility I believe it is, it's only going to help me get better.  

 

I am glad that FS is updating the app to show the D-plane data with graphics rather than just data tiles.  

[jho786]

5 hours ago, games said:

@PaybaxI agree.  Seems like most that are initially unhappy disappear.  Probably after they change their setup or actually read the instructions…

 

One poster on a FB forum says he has gone through four units from FlightScope and STILL negs them.  Ridiculous!

 

I think most serial whiners have an incurable issue with their use or setup that they can’t control and won’t admit to.  Also, some are unrealistic about their actual carry distances.  Others simply don’t understand how these work and how sensitive these units are to alignment, ball condition, type of mat, indoor flight distance and even acoustics.

 

I’ve been ridiculed for this and I don’t care:  Anyone hitting indoors needs to consider covering floors and even walls to soak up sound.  I see the graphs from the interference utility registering sound at driver impact.  If sound travels faster than the ball I have to believe driver impact can cause issues with reads.  I wonder if guys with the carbon faces do better than titanium…

I have a buddy who had one and is convinced that the unit just wasn't giving him the right data and decided to buy a BLP instead and it still gives him similar data.  He isn't a good golfer and hits balls all over the face, just tries to hit it as hard as possible on every swing and severely hits down on the ball.  Told him that sometimes these devices are humbling and you don't always hit your best shots given your skill level.  Still didn't believe me and I used his Mevo+ and didn't see anything different from mine.

[Exactice808]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Eason said:

I won't be upgraded for a while to Pro Package. 

 

Too early for me.

 

I do want to see how Fusion tracking goes and if it address issues ive had.

 

BTW got a message from FS today, they want me 8 feet behind the ball for outdoors (So why support 7 ffs) 

 

 

Ok to be fair, if you have done your fair amount of research and we have been discussing for a LONG time.  This is NOT a one size fits all, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room.

 

I am currently 7ft 5" from mevo+ to ball.  Short indoors with exactly 8ft ball to Screen with ZERO issues like you are having.

 

Many videos of people that have done review talk about find the sweet spot for each machine, NOT everyone is at 8ft.

 

You have to find the sweet spot from the machine, To be fair,  You seem to be the only one with 6000rpms of spin.

 

Either its the machine that is not calibrated or you are not setting up or finding the sweet spot in regards to setup.

 

Dont blame the system why its says "support 7ft"  IT DOES Support, but it just means that your setup and environment is not good for it...........

[Krt22]

15 hours ago, Paybax said:

Holy crap this thread is now full of a bunch of whiners now. The unit works well, you or your environment is the issue. 
 

And go check the GC3 forums or any of the others and look at the complaints there too. It’s golfer or environment related, not unit. 

lol how can you say it "works well" if it simply doesn't work well in all environments? When you market something largely as an indoor launch monitor for simulator use, should it not work well in a vast majority of indoor environments? 

 

It works well for certain people, it does not work well for everyone. If you main use case is indoors, camera based units are far more reliable. The GC3 thread is only a few months old but already twice as large for a reason, its a superiors product for simulator use. Most of the "complaints" in that thread have nothing to do with basic functionality/accuracy

[Firethorn50]

46 minutes ago, jho786 said:

Im going to get it.  I was one of the early purchasers of the Mevo+ and have loved it ever since.  I have a pretty interference free setup in my garage and love hitting balls and working on my game.  It's original club measuring features were pretty awesome to me and really helped me practice, plus when I bring it to my club's range outdoors, it's phenomenal.  

 

The new club data is a huge help and I like getting data that an X3 or TM4 provides without having to spend another $50/hr at a simulator place.  Assuming that the club data is accurate, which when I go use a TM4 at a facility I believe it is, it's only going to help me get better.  

 

I am glad that FS is updating the app to show the D-plane data with graphics rather than just data tiles.  

Yes! The d-plane is another feature I’m excited to try out.

[Dan13]

Radar was designed for outside use. Flightscope/TM have done a good job of fitting a round peg into a square hole but if your primary use is limited flight/indoors then camera based is a safer bet.

 

 

[Exactice808]

Ugh I am going to stick my neck out..... *Flame Suit Activated*

 

1) Mevo+ is not perfect, PERIOD, Nor is Trackman, GCQuad etc etc.

2) EACH Unit though is PERFECT for a specific PERSON that it FITS.  The consumer needs to do their risk vs reward and figure it out.  If "YOU" the consumer made a bad decision for your purchase its not the UNITS fault, you did not do enough diligence to find out if it worked for you or NOT.

 

TL:DR

 

Each unit works well for someone, you just gotta hope you invested in the right one that works for you! Its not the units fault for not working optimal in your environment.

 

 

Cool Story bro time......

 

I use 99.9% indoor with a small space 16f space. The first indicator was camera based. Skytrack (pre BLP/GC3).  But it required a subscription AND the biggest one for me, it sits right next to the "teeing" area. MY kids would DESTROY the $2,000 unit. (PS, I had an ES14 that sits right there and my kid freaking knocked it already, hell if I am going to have a $2k-5k system right there)

 

I made the risk vs reward after reading and researching that the 16ft space would be JUST enough to "work". The price point was what I could afford at the time as well. If I could NOT afford it. I would not have purchased it and waited till I could afford it.

 

NOW did it work when I first set it up? NOPE.  I had tape measures, Tape, alignment sticks trying to get this thing aligned.  after 3 solid months and youtube vidoes I found the sweat spot, I now have a block of wood next to the wall with markings all over it so I put the unit right back to the "sweet spot" after Its been charged. The hitting mat is on a board elevated to match the mevo+ etc etc. LOTS of trial an error.

 

I am assuming the SAME issues is going on with Sktrack people, BLB, GC3.  Their environment and conditions dictate the efficacy of the Unit.

 

Just because it doesnt work in your environment or situation "blaming the unit" wont change a bad decision.  Either you work hard to fix or work with your environment, or sell it and find another unit that WORKS.

 

Now the Mevo+ SUCKS at putting I am pissed about it,  but am I going to throw the unit away or discredit it? No cause I can live without it and putt with my "perfect putt" mat and live without it working.  I hope that I can rework my environment one day to get the putting to work or hope fusion tracking does something, but we shall see. Does the Unit suck because of it? its disappointing, but basically everything else works well for me. 

 

getting off my soap box.... sorry....

 

 

 

 

[wolfyand1]

Given the cost of these units in Australia it may take me a while to get the funds together but does anyone know if the pro package will be available in AUS? Surely it wouldn’t be USA only. I asked on the flight scope Instagram but got no response. 

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, Dan13 said:

Radar was designed for outside use. Flightscope/TM have done a good job of fitting a round peg into a square hole but if your primary use is limited flight/indoors then camera based is a safer bet.

 

 

Agreed 100%. This coming from someone who owned a flighscope for 5 years. I finally sold it last year and went to foresight and have never been happier or more confident in the data.

[Krt22]

46 minutes ago, Exactice808 said:

Ugh I am going to stick my neck out..... *Flame Suit Activated*

 

1) Mevo+ is not perfect, PERIOD, Nor is Trackman, GCQuad etc etc.

2) EACH Unit though is PERFECT for a specific PERSON that it FITS.  The consumer needs to do their risk vs reward and figure it out.  If "YOU" the consumer made a bad decision for your purchase its not the UNITS fault, you did not do enough diligence to find out if it worked for you or NOT.

 

 

I am assuming the SAME issues is going on with Sktrack people, BLB, GC3.  Their environment and conditions dictate the efficacy of the Unit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Skytrack has environmental limitations and accuracy issues for high ball speeds. The GC3 and quad will work just about anywhere, that is the main draw of them for many users. Plop it down and get accurate normalized data on the spot. Minus the well known issue with high launch/low spin driver shots, they are very accurate and very reliable. 

 

But this isn't really about one brand or the other. Radar has inherent limitations and issues indoors, period. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to themself. For the 1 guy with a perfectly working device, there are a handful who struggle to get consistent data. 25k trackman 4 and 2k mevo+ devices both struggle indoors to accurately measure spin and spin axis with limited ball flight, even more so with driver's where gear effect can come into play.

[Dan13]

7 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Agreed 100%. This coming from someone who owned a flighscope for 5 years. I finally sold it last year and went to foresight and have never been happier or more confident in the data.

GC3 and LP are very good units. I just can't justify that kind of money just so I can help turn an 8 handicap into something less. Its not just that units are more expensive, it is the PC requirements to run their required software.  If the BLP had simulation and club path for $3k I would of gone that way. The market will get there but will take another couple of years.

[Krt22]

2 minutes ago, Dan13 said:

GC3 and LP are very good units. I just can't justify that kind of money just so I can help turn an 8 handicap into something less. Its not just that units are more expensive, it is the PC requirements to run their required software.  If the BLP had simulation and club path for $3k I would of gone that way. The market will get there but will take another couple of years.

That is a very valid point, they definitely are at a higher price point. You are basically paying for the extra reliability/accuracy. If radar units were just as reliable indoors, the two price points would be much closer together IMHO. The mevo+ a bit more expensive and the GC3 a bit cheaper. It will be very interesting to see how things change if the new uneekor device performs well

[aramirez24]

Here's my setup with my mevo+. Absolutely no issue and exponentially better with the RCT balls. My brother in law just signed to go play golf at Nebraska and practices on a GC4 at his coaches facility. He says there's almost no difference in anything, EXCEPT the driver. He also has 180 ball speed so that's what I'd expect. Personally as someone who tops out around 160-165 ball speed it works fine for me. Yeah sometimes the driver is ~ 10-15 yards short, but for me it's exactly what I want for practicing what I'm going to go do outside . And for $1800 I really don't think it can be beat. 

[Exactice808]

2 hours ago, Krt22 said:

Skytrack has environmental limitations and accuracy issues for high ball speeds. The GC3 and quad will work just about anywhere, that is the main draw of them for many users. Plop it down and get accurate normalized data on the spot. Minus the well known issue with high launch/low spin driver shots, they are very accurate and very reliable. 

 

But this isn't really about one brand or the other. Radar has inherent limitations and issues indoors, period. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to themself. For the 1 guy with a perfectly working device, there are a handful who struggle to get consistent data. 25k trackman 4 and 2k mevo+ devices both struggle indoors to accurately measure spin and spin axis with limited ball flight, even more so with driver's where gear effect can come into play.

Cant say it any better.  And EXACTLY this is not "hidden information" Its well known. Researching before you Drop $2,000 is the consumers responsibility.   Being pissed at the unit because it doesn't work in your environment is not the units fault, due to the seemingly obvious limitations.

 

I will say this, my kid blasted my ES14 thankfully no real damage.  There is NO way I am putting a Skytrack, BLP, GC3 or a Quad in the same spot to get whacked by my kids. And YES the simulator was for both myself and my kids to enjoy the game of golf. It was my "Risk vs Reward" based on my environment.

 

Its just tough reading some of the critiques which is NOT seemingly the devices fault, it was NOT the best device for that person.   

 

PS.... Exactly  $25k Trackman has limitation similar to a $2k Mevo+..... I saved $23,000 to figure the same limitation..... Seems like a good choice to me.... LOL! 

[Trap Junior]

What is the issue with driver ball speeds above 165mph?

Can they not tweak the algorythm or whatever it is to fix it?

[games]

56 minutes ago, Trap Junior said:

What is the issue with driver ball speeds above 165mph?

Can they not tweak the algorythm or whatever it is to fix it?

FlightScope has said optimal conditions allow enough distance to read spin on one full ball rotation.  The faster the ball speed, the more room needed for the ball to rotate once.      

 

See this prior post from @Dan13 to determine optimal ball flight:

 

[games]

I would add that we each probably have our own optimal distance where the shots with estimated spin drop off exponentially.  And, for some of us it may be a matter of finding just an extra three to six inches of ball flight.  Maybe moving the mat toward the unit to get that extra distance.

 

Another aspect to radar that I learned from Ron at GungHo Golf when he was a regular contributor here:  FlightScope has a patented method for reading a seam of a ball to use for spin detection.  Now, I don't know if that's a true seam or whether it's maybe just any alignment graphics. But, with Fusion Tracking now in play, I wonder if that brings this patent into play, too.  I wonder what could be done with the Divide balls from Srixon?

 

I watched the FlightScope IG video from the show, and was pleased to hear they were using Titleist RCT balls at the show, and that more work is being done to optimize detection and measurements of those.  But, did anyone else see MEVO+ is powering the new Bridgestone OTTO ball fitting system?  Could be a future source for balls optimized for radar LMs, too!

[Firethorn50]

It definitely works better outdoors than indoors. Really outdoors I’d flawless. I love using it for my pitch shots. I was sbke to try different styles of pitches to see which ones produced what spin. Yeah, I’ll be upgrading I guess.

[HiTrajLoSpin]

5 hours ago, games said:

FlightScope has said optimal conditions allow enough distance to read spin on one full ball rotation.  The faster the ball speed, the more room needed for the ball to rotate once.      

 

See this prior post from @Dan13 to determine optimal ball flight:

 

 

Rather than determining if their ball rpm/mph for 8 feet of flight is at least 11, I think most people would rather want to know what the minimum ball flight distance should be for a given ball rpm/mph. So, converting FlightScope's metric of 11 at 8 feet gives:

 

               minimum distance (ft) = 88 x (ball mph/rpm)

 

Using FlightScope's example of 180 mph and 2000 rpm gives

 

              minimum distance (ft) = 88 x (180/2000) = 7.92 ft

 

 

[Carolina Golfer 2]

4 hours ago, Firethorn50 said:

It definitely works better outdoors than indoors. Really outdoors I’d flawless. I love using it for my pitch shots. I was sbke to try different styles of pitches to see which ones produced what spin. Yeah, I’ll be upgrading I guess.

I’m considering this unit and it will probably be 100% outdoor use for at least a year or two. 
 

In addition it will be probably 75% on the range with range balls. And 25% on course (I have access to practice on course when it’s closed) with real golf balls. 
 

so my question, do you think the info I get from the range with range balls will be any good or is it a waste to spend that much for what could be skewed numbers due to range balls. 
 

I’m not so much interested in the simulation part at this point.  

[Dan13]

Honestly depends on the quality of the range balls if you want to work on carry distances. Good news is that with the pro package you can work on club path and face angle, general shot shapes, angle of attack. Things where the ball is irrelevant. To work on carry distances may be better off hitting into a net with your gamer ball if you can get more than 8 ft of ball flight somewhere. 

[Carolina Golfer 2]

1 hour ago, Dan13 said:

Honestly depends on the quality of the range balls if you want to work on carry distances. Good news is that with the pro package you can work on club path and face angle, general shot shapes, angle of attack. Things where the ball is irrelevant. To work on carry distances may be better off hitting into a net with your gamer ball if you can get more than 8 ft of ball flight somewhere. 

Yeah. I have thought of the pro package for that reason. 
 

Also thanks. I hadn’t even thought of getting a net for outside use.  I have plenty of room on our grass range to get the 8feet.  And then I can use my ProvX 

 

 

 

[DS12312]

180 mph at 8ft seems like a really high ball speed for that short of distance

[Firethorn50]

4 hours ago, Carolina Golfer 2 said:

I’m considering this unit and it will probably be 100% outdoor use for at least a year or two. 
 

In addition it will be probably 75% on the range with range balls. And 25% on course (I have access to practice on course when it’s closed) with real golf balls. 
 

so my question, do you think the info I get from the range with range balls will be any good or is it a waste to spend that much for what could be skewed numbers due to range balls. 
 

I’m not so much interested in the simulation part at this point.  

I only use it with the balls that I play with (pro V1x). I don’t need to know how far I hit Range balls. If I use it while hitting range balls I’m not looking at spin rate or carry distance really…aoa, launch angle, etc. That’s why the pro package is more appealing. I can get the numbers that I really care about and the ball doesn’t matter.

[Firethorn50]

1 hour ago, DS12312 said:

180 mph at 8ft seems like a really high ball speed for that short of distance

Don’t hate 😂

[Carolina Golfer 2]

25 minutes ago, Firethorn50 said:

I only use it with the balls that I play with (pro V1x). I don’t need to know how far I hit Range balls. If I use it while hitting range balls I’m not looking at spin rate or carry distance really…aoa, launch angle, etc. That’s why the pro package is more appealing. I can get the numbers that I really care about and the ball doesn’t matter.

Makes complete sense.  Thanks