Jump to content

Bushnell Launch Pro Device with Foresight


prusd

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

All of this a moot point now. The marketing materials above clearly show that the hardware in the new LM is capable of "capturing thousands of images a second", which is clearly well beyond the 240 fps or even 1K fps cell phone grade sensors being debated. 

 

 

I suspected this comment was coming lol…..

 

If we take the claim literally, then 3 off 1K FPS (although as above that is determined by processing power not the sensor) cell phone cameras (very standard, nothing special), would be capturing “thousands of images a second”, ie three thousand. 

 

Taking that example further… they’re not claiming “tens of thousands of images a second”……. So….. not a GC2 or Quad.

 

Haven’t changed my view. Under a thousand dollars.
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, hammersia said:

I suspected this comment was coming lol…..

 

If we take the claim literally, then 3 off 1K FPS (although as above that is determined by processing power not the sensor) cell phone cameras (very standard, nothing special), would be capturing “thousands of images a second”, ie three thousand. 

 

Taking that example further… they’re not claiming “tens of thousands of images a second”……. So….. not a GC2 or Quad.

 

Haven’t changed my view. Under a thousand dollars.
 

 

I'm skeptical of this conclusion, but if it is under $1000, send me two. No three of them.

  • Like 2

410LST 8º, 3w 14.5º, 3h 19º, i210 4i, Blueprint 5-P, Glide Forged 50/54/58. Ping Tour x & MMT105tx shafts. Sigma2 Fetch w/ BGT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, hammersia said:

I suspected this comment was coming lol…..

 

If we take the claim literally, then 3 off 1K FPS (although as above that is determined by processing power not the sensor) cell phone cameras (very standard, nothing special), would be capturing “thousands of images a second”, ie three thousand. 

 

Taking that example further… they’re not claiming “tens of thousands of images a second”……. So….. not a GC2 or Quad.

 

Haven’t changed my view. Under a thousand dollars.
 

 

The money that they charge for a unit has very little to do with the quality of the camera or sensors.  If I were a betting man, I would say the nest egg that Foresight has that allows them to do what they do and charge what they charge is the software and IP that powers it.  Expecting them to devalue their bread and butter seems short sighted.  This seems more and more to me like a GC2 replacement.  If it will give the same accurate ball data that the quad gives, I suspect this will be more in line with competing with the TW LM that has been talked about.  Don't get me wrong.  I hope you're right and it's sub $1k.  But, I just don't see it.  

  • Like 2

Taylormade OG Sim 10.5* w/Diamana PD 60X tipped 1"
Callaway Mavrik SZ 15* 3 Wood w/Ventus Red 7X 1.5" tipping
Taylormade Sim2 15* w/Riptide 80TX
Callaway Apex TCB 4-PW w/MCA MMT 125TX
Scotty Cameron Special Select Newport 2 w/Stability Tour Black
Callaway MD5 Jaws 52, 58, 64
Callaway Chrome Soft X Triple Track or Srixon Z Star XV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hammersia said:

I suspected this comment was coming lol…..

 

If we take the claim literally, then 3 off 1K FPS (although as above that is determined by processing power not the sensor) cell phone cameras (very standard, nothing special), would be capturing “thousands of images a second”, ie three thousand. 

 

Taking that example further… they’re not claiming “tens of thousands of images a second”……. So….. not a GC2 or Quad.

 

Haven’t changed my view. Under a thousand dollars.
 

 

 

I'll wager $100 its well over $1,000. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many are arguing about this unit going up against the Garmin Approach R10 and where Bushnell will price it.  Think about this one.  Garmin does not have putting and has already established that their subscription for Home Tee Hero for the R10 is $10 a month.  No one is balking about that and the only issue many have with not purchasing it is the quality of what it can do.

 

Now think about how many Optishot units have been sold over the years to all of the golfers that have wanted a sim and could not afford anything of higher quality.  Enter Bushnell with a unit based on Foresight technology, something that every golfer that ever purchased an Optishot or drooled over a professional quality simulator.

 

Bushnell offers a unit that provides quality data and prices it at $1,000, a price that the masses would just go crazy over with a subscription fee of say $25 a month with a discount for paying it annually.  The masses can still afford that subscription fee, kinda like a mini golf club membership.  At 50K units sold, and I am betting that would be conservative, Bushnell would be generating A CONTINUING REVENUE STREAM OF $1,250,000 MONTHLY!  How long do you think it would take them to be ahead of the financial curve on that?

 

And, how many of you would happily pay $1,000 up front for a unit of this quality with a subscription fee of $25 a month?  My guess is they would have over 100,000 units sold or ordered within the first 60 to 90 days.  That, my fellow golfers, will provide them with a revenue stream of $2.5 million monthly.  More than enough to hire a support staff for a small call center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BSTRONG1313 said:

Wow! This is all going over my head. I just want it to give me reliable club data at a semi-reasonable price.

 

But as someone with no experience in thid space I can tell you there is no way this retails for $1,000. Margin is almost always preferable to high volume from a business perspective. You don't see Bushnell dabbling in the $150 rangefinder space. 

 

Going for margin is an old fashion business model.  Everything is going to subscription based revenue models.  You get the hardware into people's hands at a cheap price to get a lot of units out there, then you make all your revenue on recurring subscriptions.  Your rangefinder example is a bad one because you don't need to subscribe to anything with a range finder.  On a simulator you can charge a monthly/yearly fee for the software and still make a killing even if you don't make any money on selling the unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd gladly pay more for the unit if it didn't come with a mandatory subscription. Big turn off for me which is why I went Mevo + vs. Skytrak currently.  I'm fully expecting and will be buying this if it comes in around the $4k mark and offers no subs and similar e6 connect features.  I'll be able to reclaim some of my space that I needed to accommodate the radar based mevo +.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, BSTRONG1313 said:

Let's assume that they can build this at $400 each (seems low but we will go with it) and sell for $1k. They sell half a million in the first year. 80% of those people pay a subscription fee of $25 a month. The total EBITDA ends up at $430ish million. Now say they only sell 150k @ $4,000 with no subscription fee. Your looking at $540ish million.

 

Margin is going to win out with devices like these in my opinion. I hope it comes out at $1,000 but these kinds of companies rarely undercut their competition by so much. It's usually the opposite, they charge a premium. 

 

On the flipside to that argument - recurring monthly revenue that falls almost directly to EBITDA is what most businesses are chasing these days, even if they have the remotest chance of being considered a "tech" Company. I think it ends up somewhere between the two points discussed - $3,000 to $5,000 in up front cost with an annual subscription of about $150 to $200. 

 

Also despite what everyone here seems to think, the components may be cheap but they are licensing the algorithm from foresight and probably paying out the a** for it. Since when has Foresight ever not milked the customer for everything they are worth?

Edited by RGlaze978
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RGlaze978 said:

 

On the flipside to that argument - recurring monthly revenue that falls almost directly to EBITDA is what most businesses are chasing these days, even if they have the remotest chance of being considered a "tech" Company. I think it ends up somewhere between the two points discussed - $3,000 to $5,000 in up front cost with an annual subscription of about $150 to $200. 

 

Also despite what everyone here seems to think, the components may be cheap but they are licensing the algorithm from foresight and probably paying out the a** for it. Since when has Foresight ever not milked the customer for everything they are worth?

Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. They are going to find a way to get ongoing revenue through software subscriptions or add-ons pretty easily. I just think they find a way to do that without dropping the out the door price much. Some here just have some pretty wishful thinking if your going to get what looks like the most comprehensive personal launch monitor ever for $1,500 bucks total for the first 12 months.  

 

But I'll eat my words if that's how they decide to do it. I hate waiting, hopefully we have more info soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

But it doesn't tell you that there wont be blur either - which is what you seem to be arguing and fairly certain of (unless I'm mistaken).   The only difference here is that you seem to making assumptions about the max shutter speed and I'm not.  

 

Also, the generic home simulator setup is not going to come close to laboratory lighting conditions - so expecting performance to be close to the spec'd max shutter speed isn't really reasonable.  Likely the reason GC2/Quad went to non-visible lighting and strobes - and also why skytrack struggles in some lighting conditions.

 

 

 

Correct, what tells you how much blur you can have is the shutter speed used and that's independent of the framerate. As an example, my cell phone camera can expose as fast as 1/12,000s while my normal cameras can go as fast as 1/32,000s even though their maximum video framerate is only 120fps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, BSTRONG1313 said:

Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. They are going to find a way to get ongoing revenue through software subscriptions or add-ons pretty easily. I just think they find a way to do that without dropping the out the door price much. Some here just have some pretty wishful thinking if your going to get what looks like the most comprehensive personal launch monitor ever for $1,500 bucks total for the first 12 months.  

 

But I'll eat my words if that's how they decide to do it. I hate waiting, hopefully we have more info soon. 

There's no evidence posted so far that this is any more comprehensive than a Skytrak with radar clubhead speed measuring added.

 

Which I have no problem with. A cheaper Skytrak. Suits me fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, whumber said:

Correct, what tells you how much blur you can have is the shutter speed used and that's independent of the framerate. As an example, my cell phone camera can expose as fast as 1/12,000s while my normal cameras can go as fast as 1/32,000s even though their maximum video framerate is only 120fps.

 

But what blur you _will_ end up having will largely depend more on the lighting conditions than the fastest exposure time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, whumber said:

 

No, the exposure (brightness) will depend on the lighting conditions but the motion blur is only a function of shutter speed and subject speed.

 

And the max shutter speed that will be chosen by the camera will be dictated by the lighting conditions to achieve an acceptable level of brightness.  So yes, the lighting conditions will play a big part in the amount of blur.

Edited by Stuart_G
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart_G said:

 

And the max shutter speed that will be chosen by the camera will be dictated by the lighting conditions to achieve an acceptable level of brightness.  So yes, the lighting conditions will play a big part in the amount of blur.

Assuming you're allowing the camera to select the shutter speed instead of dictating that directly, it will be based on a combination of the scene brightness, aperture range (which is going to be fixed on any of these embedded cameras), and the range of gain settings available. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here though. Your original claim was that a 240fps camera would not be useful, or at least less useful, for launch analysis because it would be too blurred which is simply not true; if light conditions are such that a 240fps camera cannot get an acceptable exposure level at a shutter speed fast enough to analyze launch conditions then a 10,000fps camera is going to have the same issues (more likely even more trouble as high speed cameras tend to have structural tradeoffs that create more noise at a given gain setting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, whumber said:

Assuming you're allowing the camera to select the shutter speed instead of dictating that directly, it will be based on a combination of the scene brightness, aperture range (which is going to be fixed on any of these embedded cameras), and the range of gain settings available. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here though. Your original claim was that a 240fps camera would not be useful, or at least less useful, for launch analysis because it would be too blurred which is simply not true; if light conditions are such that a 240fps camera cannot get an acceptable exposure level at a shutter speed fast enough to analyze launch conditions then a 10,000fps camera is going to have the same issues (more likely even more trouble as high speed cameras tend to have structural tradeoffs that create more noise at a given gain setting).

 

Not exactly accurate.  I was saying that the inexpensive 250 fps cameras you were referring to would likely not be useful.   The image capturing process and analysis in a typical sim/lm enclosure is a lot more complicated than inexpensive hardware can typically handle.

Edited by Stuart_G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2021 at 5:08 PM, radiman said:

Sure, I get that.  It's just my experience.  I know a guy who had a skytrak for a few years.  Last year he bought a GCQuad and said it is hands down more accurate.  He has used his skytrak much more than I ever had used one.  He said that as he used more club the less accurate it would be.  Again, just my experience and what I have heard from him.  Assuming at worst we will get the same ball data that a GC2 or Quad would produce, I think this is simply going to be a much more accurate unit. 

Foresight do a good marketing job in terms of accuracy, but the question people should be asking is what accuracy is good enough for the task you are doing:

 

If you need 0.1rpm spin measurement then even a GCQ is inadequate at any speed. However, for almost all golfers (at least scratch and above) the golfer will introduce more variability than a Skytrak in misreads even at high ball speeds.

 

At this point it comes down to objective:

1. If you are worse than scratch and want to practice/improve a Skytrak is accurate enough; accepting a few misreads.

2. If you are worse than scratch and want to play sim golf a Skytrak is accurate enough; accepting the misreads can be annoying.

3. If you are an elite golfer you should probably buy a TM4 or GCQ; ideally both!

 

Unless this unit offers significantly more data points (club speed is pointless) it will need to be priced very closely to Skytrak to actually benefit the vast majority of users. If it doesnt they would likely be better off spending the difference on lessons (objective 1) or a better sim setup (option 2).

 

The marketing about 'outdoor range' is also interesting. If you ever actually measure range ball performance it is so wildly variable that it makes even an average golfer look like a robot! That limits the outdoor benefit to measuring outdoors using premium golf balls, something most people probably dont do so another tiny niche cleverly marketed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James495738 said:

Foresight do a good marketing job in terms of accuracy, but the question people should be asking is what accuracy is good enough for the task you are doing:

 

If you need 0.1rpm spin measurement then even a GCQ is inadequate at any speed. However, for almost all golfers (at least scratch and above) the golfer will introduce more variability than a Skytrak in misreads even at high ball speeds.

 

At this point it comes down to objective:

1. If you are worse than scratch and want to practice/improve a Skytrak is accurate enough; accepting a few misreads.

2. If you are worse than scratch and want to play sim golf a Skytrak is accurate enough; accepting the misreads can be annoying.

3. If you are an elite golfer you should probably buy a TM4 or GCQ; ideally both!

 

Unless this unit offers significantly more data points (club speed is pointless) it will need to be priced very closely to Skytrak to actually benefit the vast majority of users. If it doesnt they would likely be better off spending the difference on lessons (objective 1) or a better sim setup (option 2).

 

The marketing about 'outdoor range' is also interesting. If you ever actually measure range ball performance it is so wildly variable that it makes even an average golfer look like a robot! That limits the outdoor benefit to measuring outdoors using premium golf balls, something most people probably dont do so another tiny niche cleverly marketed.

 

Lol, what's your definition of good enough?  Ball speeds being misread by up to 10mph?  Spin being different by hundreds of RPM?  

Taylormade OG Sim 10.5* w/Diamana PD 60X tipped 1"
Callaway Mavrik SZ 15* 3 Wood w/Ventus Red 7X 1.5" tipping
Taylormade Sim2 15* w/Riptide 80TX
Callaway Apex TCB 4-PW w/MCA MMT 125TX
Scotty Cameron Special Select Newport 2 w/Stability Tour Black
Callaway MD5 Jaws 52, 58, 64
Callaway Chrome Soft X Triple Track or Srixon Z Star XV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hammersia said:

There's no evidence posted so far that this is any more comprehensive than a Skytrak with radar clubhead speed measuring added.

 

Which I have no problem with. A cheaper Skytrak. Suits me fine.

Well if it's a GC2 with only clubhead speed measuring I'll pass. My GC2 still works great and with GS Pro, a killer deal. I have a swing speed radar already.  If it's a GC2 with other club measurements (AOA, path, face etc.) then I'm intrigued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But as someone said, it's probably going to be 3k +300/year. That's fine; I can hack that.

 

I just hope against hope that it'll connect to PGA2k21.

410LST 8º, 3w 14.5º, 3h 19º, i210 4i, Blueprint 5-P, Glide Forged 50/54/58. Ping Tour x & MMT105tx shafts. Sigma2 Fetch w/ BGT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, whumber said:

$2999 will still be a smoking good deal if this ends up being more or less a GCQuad without the detailed club fitting data.

 

That is awesome for 3 cameras and infrared.  Hopefully they don't screw everyone on the software.  If the software price is inline with Skytrak that unit and likely Mevo+ are done. People who like quality will gladly pay $1k more for this unit, and bargain oriented people will go with the G10.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JDIL said:

FWIW, someone in an FB group claims to have seen the price on actual printed company materials. $2,999 is the price.

Someone on golfsimulatorforum said something similar.  Here is the quote:" Mentioned this product to a friend of mine who works on a tour truck. Spoke to foresight guy and word is it’s $2999 plus yearly subscription. All I know."

 

https://golfsimulatorforum.com/forum/golf-simulator-brands-and-types/general-and-unlisted/338030-bushnell-launch-pro/page2#post339489

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...