Bushnell Launch Pro Device with Foresight

[jmnx973]

On 9/8/2021 at 5:36 PM, amj6135 said:

The Kit will start at 4000, what that includes I don't know.  But I was told by Fullswing there will be different levels of purchase options with not all 16 metrics being offered at the base 4,000 or the ability for simulation.

I was told all 16 data points plus hd video recording are included for the $4k price.  No upswell and this includes club/path data

 

[RH2020]

1 hour ago, DinoSpumoni228 said:

 

I completely agree with this statement. 

 

If they want more people to buy it and want to make their money through volume instead, guess what they are going to have to do? Increase advertising. 

 

Now you are gambling that your increased advertising expense is going to be outweighed by increased amount of unit sales.

 

I don't think the amount of people willing to pay $2000 but not $3000 for a launch monitor is significant at all.

 

If you have $2,000 to spend on golf, you also probably have it in your budget to swing $3,000. If not you could always finance the last $1,000 at practically 0% interest these days.

 

It's dumb to try to make money through volume on a high tech product like this.

 

The freaking thing is taking pictures of a golf ball being hit with an object moving potentially 120+ mph and predicting what the golf balls flight would have been within a few yards of what would have actually happened, yet you expect it to cost the same amount as a new mattress?

 

 

 

 

I think the technology here has been overly mystified. Remember the special effect in the matrix, which was back in 1999. So multiple known cameras can be used to reconstruct full 3D info quite reliably. It’s been 2 decades since then, the resolution and the speed of these cameras have been improved in great deal. Use simple computer vision technique one can reliably reconstruct the 3D ball flight, even within the first inches of ball flight, it is enough to accurately to calculate all the key ball info. After that it is just aerodynamic, i.e. physics model to calculate the flight curve including apex and carry etc.

 

now quad is a 4-yr old product, enough time to further bring down the cost greatly. Anyhow, just glad foresight is actually making a product like gc3. Very grateful. Only if this is a bigger market, it woulda been much earlier. I still wonder what happened to skytrak lol.

[cwilk]

47 minutes ago, games said:

MEVO+ is plenty accurate. 

 

What is in the Foresight Kool-Aid with this group?  I get you think their products are superior because they give you 25 extra yards carry, but come on...

Nothing in the Kool-Aid. I actually prefer Trackman over Foresight, even indoors.
 

Mevo+ is not accurate, and it’s worse the faster you swing/the higher the ball speed. Sorry about your slow club head speeds. 

[amj6135]

16 minutes ago, jmnx973 said:

I was told all 16 data points plus hd video recording are included for the $4k price.  No upswell and this includes club/path data

 

Interesting, I was told differently, but that was over six months ago.  I was also told it would ship in May but we know how that went.

[CStephenson17]

2 minutes ago, amj6135 said:

Interesting, I was told differently, but that was over six months ago.  I was also told it would ship in May but we know how that went.

In the call with the CEO of FullSwing back in April he said that it would all be included in the $4k

[amj6135]

Didn’t he also say they were going to have a big announcement later that month?  He also didn’t give off the impression they had cracked the code on indoor spin axis either so that may have something to do with the delay and silence

[jmnx973]

Lot of supply chain issues and other unforeseen things but hopefully by November.  

[James495738]

7 hours ago, cwilk said:

Nothing in the Kool-Aid. I actually prefer Trackman over Foresight, even indoors.
 

Mevo+ is not accurate, and it’s worse the faster you swing/the higher the ball speed. Sorry about your slow club head speeds. 

I dont know why people talk in terms of 'accurate' being an absolute term.

 

The ST and Mevo+ are accurate enough for the vast majority of golfers to practise constructively and get actionable feedback.

 

The GCQ is way more accurate, but unless you are an outlier (elite golfer, or very fast) you are unlikely to benefit from it.

 

If a ST is 2k and this comes in at 3k and you want to improve your golf you will see greater improvement buying the ST and spending 1k on lessons than spending 3k on a gc3, unless you fall into the outlier categories. Obviously the best case is getting a gc3 and spending 1k on lessons 🙂

 

 

[James495738]

10 hours ago, jcrews5508 said:

I would hardly call a company that has probably made $250 million in 10 years Which was just sold for 450 million failing at anything. You could argue they could sell more volume but the volume doesn’t always equate to more profit, sometimes it does sometimes it doesn’t. I think many people really overestimate the size of the launch monitor market. If they drop this to 3K or 4K there will be more demand of course but they can only make X units a year and will probably have long waits and get more headaches while increasing their profit margin only a minimal amount.

 

If a GC3 costs >2k to make then I think this holds true. If however it is <1k I think they are playing a dangerous game and inviting disruption:

 

ST demonstrated many years ago it was possible to make an accetably accurate LM for personal use for 2k, and if they (or another company) come out with an improved version for 2k they will eliminate most of the GC3 market.

 

In terms of market size I think the bulk market would only be engaged if the unit is circa $500 which looks technically impossible at present. Having said that the R10 shows this is getting closer...

[amj6135]

10 hours ago, jmnx973 said:

Lot of supply chain issues and other unforeseen things but hopefully by November.  

No doubt, but it would be nice to see some that have been produced  in the hands of reviewers.  Like Foresight and Garmin have done.  

[Bama_Rich]

5 hours ago, James495738 said:

I dont know why people talk in terms of 'accurate' being an absolute term.

 

The ST and Mevo+ are accurate enough for the vast majority of golfers to practise constructively and get actionable feedback.

 

The GCQ is way more accurate, but unless you are an outlier (elite golfer, or very fast) you are unlikely to benefit from it.

 

If a ST is 2k and this comes in at 3k and you want to improve your golf you will see greater improvement buying the ST and spending 1k on lessons than spending 3k on a gc3, unless you fall into the outlier categories. Obviously the best case is getting a gc3 and spending 1k on lessons 🙂

 

 

 

I respectfully disagree.  If you're a golfer that wants to practice, the ST or Mevo+ are not accurate enough.  I've hit on both and the ball flight, spin and distances on those devices do not correlate at all to real golf. I think what people are looking for is a seamless experience between launch monitor and on course. To do that, the GC4 / Bushnell Pro / GC3 / Trackman are required.

 

If you just want to hit on a sim/launch monitor just for fun or exclusively, the ST and Mevo+ are more than adequate.

[mikewohlwend]

5 hours ago, James495738 said:

I dont know why people talk in terms of 'accurate' being an absolute term.

 

The ST and Mevo+ are accurate enough for the vast majority of golfers to practise constructively and get actionable feedback.

 

The GCQ is way more accurate, but unless you are an outlier (elite golfer, or very fast) you are unlikely to benefit from it.

 

If a ST is 2k and this comes in at 3k and you want to improve your golf you will see greater improvement buying the ST and spending 1k on lessons than spending 3k on a gc3, unless you fall into the outlier categories. Obviously the best case is getting a gc3 and spending 1k on lessons 🙂

 

 

 

This is how I feel as well.

 

19 minutes ago, Bama_Rich said:

 

I respectfully disagree.  If you're a golfer that wants to practice, the ST or Mevo+ are not accurate enough.  I've hit on both and the ball flight, spin and distances on those devices do not correlate at all to real golf. I think what people are looking for is a seamless experience between launch monitor and on course. To do that, the GC4 / Bushnell Pro / GC3 / Trackman are required.

 

If you just want to hit on a sim/launch monitor just for fun or exclusively, the ST and Mevo+ are more than adequate.

 

What do you find different on the distances?

[cwilk]

5 hours ago, James495738 said:

I dont know why people talk in terms of 'accurate' being an absolute term.

 

The ST and Mevo+ are accurate enough for the vast majority of golfers to practise constructively and get actionable feedback.

 

The GCQ is way more accurate, but unless you are an outlier (elite golfer, or very fast) you are unlikely to benefit from it.

 

If a ST is 2k and this comes in at 3k and you want to improve your golf you will see greater improvement buying the ST and spending 1k on lessons than spending 3k on a gc3, unless you fall into the outlier categories. Obviously the best case is getting a gc3 and spending 1k on lessons 🙂

 

 

I think the only people that feel that way are the poor guys that bought them already.  Every review that appears unbiased have at best ended in something along the lines of, "you get what you pay for."  

 

I know from my experience that they really struggle with spin axis.  From what I've seen/read so far that even applies to the new Garmin R10.  So there are people using them indoors thinking they are hitting one shot shape when in reality it's the opposite.  This is terrible for trying to improve and get actionable feedback.  It will inevitably lead to heartache and frustration.  The spin axis issue isn't as bad if you are using a device like the Mevo/+ outdoors where you can see the ball flight, so I'll give those devices an edge over Skytrak.  

 

I disagree on the $1k for lessons as well.  It may work out great for one person and not the other.  There are so many factors at play.  I've taken around 60 lessons in my life and have had some really good instructors where I made changes rapidly and some poor instructors that I felt like were a complete waste of money.  I'm to the point now that I'd only go for a check-up.  I think sometimes there is only so much that can be done in a lesson before the student has to go work things out in the dirt/on the range/etc.  This is where a quality launch monitor with accurate data would really shine, especially accurate club data.  

 

But, as others have already posted here, this thread is for the LaunchPro/GC3.  Comparison's can't take place because there aren't enough of the LaunchPro/GC3 units in the wild to have genuine comparison discussions just yet.  

[James495738]

30 minutes ago, Bama_Rich said:

 

I respectfully disagree.  If you're a golfer that wants to practice, the ST or Mevo+ are not accurate enough.  I've hit on both and the ball flight, spin and distances on those devices do not correlate at all to real golf. I think what people are looking for is a seamless experience between launch monitor and on course. To do that, the GC4 / Bushnell Pro / GC3 / Trackman are required.

 

If you just want to hit on a sim/launch monitor just for fun or exclusively, the ST and Mevo+ are more than adequate.

This is simply not true unless you are an outlier as I mentioned above.

 

A ST/mevo will misread sometimes but these are easy to spot and discard. The gcq and tm4 are no different, but their misread rate is far lower. I don't practise or change things based on a single shot so this is a non issue.

 

Impact physics is really complex with a ton of variables and I don't think many people appreciate how inaccurate they actually are.

 

I would be incredibly happy if my ST was way off, but all to often the hooks I see on it are the reality I take onto the golf course! 🙂

[Bama_Rich]

15 minutes ago, mikewohlwend said:

 

This is how I feel as well.

 

 

What do you find different on the distances?

 

The ST is 10-15 yards longer on all my irons and the shot shape doesn't match my real ball flight.

 

I've hit the Mevo & Mevo+ predominantly outdoors as they are radar units. They both do a very good job a capturing ball speed and launch angle.  However, the spin readings are very inconsistent which affects their calculation on distance.  When I'm trying to hit different shots, standard vs. draw vs. fade vs flighted vs 3/4, etc. I'm doing so to learn the distances on each of those shots and the Mevo or Mevo+ don't help me with that as they are not accurate enough.

[James495738]

4 minutes ago, Bama_Rich said:

 

The ST is 10-15 yards longer on all my irons and the shot shape doesn't match my real ball flight.

 

I've hit the Mevo & Mevo+ predominantly outdoors as they are radar units. They both do a very good job a capturing ball speed and launch angle.  However, the spin readings are very inconsistent which affects their calculation on distance.  When I'm trying to hit different shots, standard vs. draw vs. fade vs flighted vs 3/4, etc. I'm doing so to learn the distances on each of those shots and the Mevo or Mevo+ don't help me with that as they are not accurate enough.

I would love to know how/where you measured those distances?

 

 

[James495738]

10 minutes ago, cwilk said:

I know from my experience that they really struggle with spin axis.  From what I've seen/read so far that even applies to the new Garmin R10.  So there are people using them indoors thinking they are hitting one shot shape when in reality it's the opposite.  This is terrible for trying to improve and get actionable feedback.  It will inevitably lead to heartache and frustration.  The spin axis issue isn't as bad if you are using a device like the Mevo/+ outdoors where you can see the ball flight, so I'll give those devices an edge over Skytrak.  

 

 

Completely agree. I understand why radar units struggle with spin axis indoors but the ST has always puzzled me because it gets the other variables correctly (including total spin). In general it tends towards excessive curvature, but if I am practising I would never act upon a single shot and averaged over a few shots it is depressingly accurate 🙂

 

[Bama_Rich]

4 minutes ago, James495738 said:

This is simply not true unless you are an outlier as I mentioned above.

 

A ST/mevo will misread sometimes but these are easy to spot and discard. The gcq and tm4 are no different, but their misread rate is far lower. I don't practise or change things based on a single shot so this is a non issue.

 

Impact physics is really complex with a ton of variables and I don't think many people appreciate how inaccurate they actually are.

 

I would be incredibly happy if my ST was way off, but all to often the hooks I see on it are the reality I take onto the golf course! 🙂

 

1 minute ago, James495738 said:

I would love to know how/where you measured those distances?

 

 

 What distances? The ST was indoors off of turf at my club. As an example, it was reading the following:

 

7i - 192

8i - 178

PW - 150

 

My actually yardages are:

7i - 180

8i - 168

PW - 142

 

I play enough that I know how far my standard shot goes for each iron.  When I go to my local PGA Superstore and hit off of the GCQuad, my distances match that of my shots on course.  When I recently went in for a fitting at Club Champion and hit off of the Trackman, my distances matched that of my shots on the course.  When I take the Mevo and Mevo+ on course, they do not match the actual distance of the shot.  That's how and where I measured those distances.

[Bama_Rich]

4 minutes ago, James495738 said:

Completely agree. I understand why radar units struggle with spin axis indoors but the ST has always puzzled me because it gets the other variables correctly (including total spin). In general it tends towards excessive curvature, but if I am practising I would never act upon a single shot and averaged over a few shots it is depressingly accurate 🙂

 

 

When you say practice, what is it that you are practicing?

[James495738]

4 minutes ago, Bama_Rich said:

What distances? The ST was indoors off of turf at my club. As an example, it was reading the following:

 

7i - 192

8i - 178

PW - 150

 

My actually yardages are:

7i - 180

8i - 168

PW - 142

Do you mean artifical turf or real? Was the ball identical between all tests?

 

When I first got my ST I saw high carry distances but low ball speed. The reason was the mat I hit off was new raising strike by a few mm. This increased launch and decreased spin so the ball went further. As the mat wore in the numbers stabilised.

 

 

[James495738]

5 minutes ago, Bama_Rich said:

 

When you say practice, what is it that you are practicing?

If I have taken a lesson and am working on something I might block practise it. I also do lots of distance ladder drills and combine type tests.

 

 

[Bama_Rich]

2 minutes ago, James495738 said:

Do you mean artifical turf or real? Was the ball identical between all tests?

 

When I first got my ST I saw high carry distances but low ball speed. The reason was the mat I hit off was new raising strike by a few mm. This increased launch and decreased spin so the ball went further. As the mat wore in the numbers stabilised.

 

 

 

Artificial Turf. All shots were with the most recent Chrome Soft X golf ball.  

 

My club has a simulator hitting bay. The main simulator (camera based) was being serviced so our Director of Instruction hooked up his ST.  Hitting off of the same Turf with the Uneekor QED sim, again, the distances matched what I expected.

[mikewohlwend]

28 minutes ago, Bama_Rich said:

 

The ST is 10-15 yards longer on all my irons and the shot shape doesn't match my real ball flight.

 

I've hit the Mevo & Mevo+ predominantly outdoors as they are radar units. They both do a very good job a capturing ball speed and launch angle.  However, the spin readings are very inconsistent which affects their calculation on distance.  When I'm trying to hit different shots, standard vs. draw vs. fade vs flighted vs 3/4, etc. I'm doing so to learn the distances on each of those shots and the Mevo or Mevo+ don't help me with that as they are not accurate enough.

 

I haven't noticed the distances being that far off on mine.  The only person that hits on it that finds things being off is a digger, so the mat doesn't give enough for his swing.

[CStephenson17]

I don’t get the point of Mevo+ and Skytrack to be honest which is why I have yet to buy a LM even though my room has been built out since Feb. I know Mevo+ and Skytrack are “accurate” but I don’t just want something close. I want something that is going to be spot on why is why I am putting my hopes in this. I don’t want one to play golf on rather to just use to practice and work so good just isn’t good enough in my case. No sense in getting bad data when I could get more reliable data for not much more money

[James495738]

2 minutes ago, CStephenson17 said:

I don’t get the point of Mevo+ and Skytrack to be honest which is why I have yet to buy a LM even though my room has been built out since Feb. I know Mevo+ and Skytrack are “accurate” but I don’t just want something close. I want something that is going to be spot on why is why I am putting my hopes in this. I don’t want one to play golf on rather to just use to practice and work so good just isn’t good enough in my case. No sense in getting bad data when I could get more reliable data for not much more money

Unless you are better than scratch you will be more variable than the unit. This is the unfortunate reality for the vast majority of us 🙂

[James495738]

7 minutes ago, mikewohlwend said:

 

I haven't noticed the distances being that far off on mine.  The only person that hits on it that finds things being off is a digger, so the mat doesn't give enough for his swing.

Agree, assuming the unit wasnt faulty there was something else causing the inflated distance. The amazing thing is the ST was showing inflated distances; most people moan about their distances being short 🙂

[MiuraWanKinobi]

Skytrak have a new unit on the way.

 

The Patent was officially approved a few weeks back 

 

Things are hotting up for sure in the LM market!

[MiuraWanKinobi]

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200282283A1/en
 

 

[radiman]

12 minutes ago, James495738 said:

Unless you are better than scratch you will be more variable than the unit. This is the unfortunate reality for the vast majority of us 🙂

So, why expand on that and have to deal with more variables?  For those that own and love their skytrak, great, I am happy for you.  I don't see the point in coming in here to argue that it's good enough?  Foresight is a more accurate unit, that cannot be disputed.  It's going to come in at $3k which isn't that far off from a skytrak (that hasn't had a hardware change in years).  If someone is wanting to pay the difference in price, that's their choice.  And for that additional price, they're going to have more accurate data plain and simple.  

[radiman]

1 minute ago, games said:

 

Yet, here we are.   (The earth is flat, the earth is flat...  Foresight's more accurate... Foresight's more accurate... Can't be disputed... Can't be disputed...  There's no place like home...  There's no place like home...)

 

 

You're telling me the skytrak is as accurate?