Equipment testing Trackman, Foresight, GC, etc.

[greenwavegolfer]

Be careful taking the Flightscope optimizer as gospel, it's a calculation in the same way the GCQuad algorithm is. It's well known that at the low spin end GCQ can tend to over-exaggerate distance somewhat. However, from what I've seen that Flightscope optimizer tends to underestimate distance somewhat. So while there may be a 6% variance between Flightscope and Foresight algorithms for that shot you measured (I'm sure it's lower than that at shorter distances) that doesn't mean that one is right and the other is wrong. I'd suspect that the real distance for that shot is somewhere between the two numbers and the variance is probably more like 3% and 3% or 4% and 2% or something along those lines. Honestly, the biggest factor is that they're consistent in their measurements and calculations. If it's off by 2% from reality on specific shot types that's not a huge deal if it's at least consistent and you can use it relatively against other measurements it takes.

 

In the end, nothing indoors is going to be 100% perfect with real on-course results and it just can't be because there are so many variables to account for. But we know that monitors like GCQ are accurate to what they measure and consistent in their calculations and that's what's important. And if you're using it inside at least it measures everything well including spin and spin axis which all radar based monitors have documented issues with (including Trackman). In my use of any Foresight device I've never noticed results that I would consider that far outside of reality, except with the occasional low-spin driver shot which, again, is well documented by plenty of people over the years.

[Bill Bales]

I am new to this forum but found this string interesting and Red's comments were particularly well said.  That said, it's not necessarily "measured" vs "calculated" as there is code in every launch monitor to extract launch kinematics from images (in the case of an imaging system like GC Quad) or squiggly lines (in the case of a radar system like Trackman).  Both imaging and radar have reached the point in launch monitoring where they are darn good.  Radar has to dig deeper to extract and essentially calculate spin rate, and to a much greater degree spin axis.  But both methods work well.  Outdoors, radar such as Trackman tracks the entire flight of the ball.  But for simulators or indoors we just have launch conditions to apply to the rest of the experience.

 

Once a shot is hit and the launch kinematics (conditions) are known, a trajectory physics algorithm processes this data to model (display) the shot's flight, bounce (collisions), and roll.  This is an entirely separate piece of the puzzle when comparing simulated shot outcomes.  The trajectory physics model used by Trackman is not the same as in Foresight's FSX software, also different from GSPro, E6, and with the vertical brands (GolfZon, AboutGolf, HD Golf).  

 

As the consuming public continues to gain knowledge of these technologies, they will drive much greater awareness of the types and relative fidelity of these varying technologies and products.  But it will get even more intriguing as the industry will be seeing substantially improved trajectory physics models in the future, particularly with outlier shots and the short game.  This relates to the fact that no current sim software producer knows or applies full models of aero-coefficients.  This is going to change.

 

And there are some mind-blowing new technologies soon to arrive that will likely shake up the simulator and launch monitor markets.  Fun stuff ahead.

[cdnavalanche9312]

19 hours ago, Bill Bales said:

I am new to this forum but found this string interesting and Red's comments were particularly well said.  That said, it's not necessarily "measured" vs "calculated" as there is code in every launch monitor to extract launch kinematics from images (in the case of an imaging system like GC Quad) or squiggly lines (in the case of a radar system like Trackman).  Both imaging and radar have reached the point in launch monitoring where they are darn good.  Radar has to dig deeper to extract and essentially calculate spin rate, and to a much greater degree spin axis.  But both methods work well.  Outdoors, radar such as Trackman tracks the entire flight of the ball.  But for simulators or indoors we just have launch conditions to apply to the rest of the experience.

 

Once a shot is hit and the launch kinematics (conditions) are known, a trajectory physics algorithm processes this data to model (display) the shot's flight, bounce (collisions), and roll.  This is an entirely separate piece of the puzzle when comparing simulated shot outcomes.  The trajectory physics model used by Trackman is not the same as in Foresight's FSX software, also different from GSPro, E6, and with the vertical brands (GolfZon, AboutGolf, HD Golf).  

 

As the consuming public continues to gain knowledge of these technologies, they will drive much greater awareness of the types and relative fidelity of these varying technologies and products.  But it will get even more intriguing as the industry will be seeing substantially improved trajectory physics models in the future, particularly with outlier shots and the short game.  This relates to the fact that no current sim software producer knows or applies full models of aero-coefficients.  This is going to change.

 

And there are some mind-blowing new technologies soon to arrive that will likely shake up the simulator and launch monitor markets.  Fun stuff ahead.

Please speak on these "mind blowing" technologies, I am interested in those