Trackman Limitations and Causes for Misreads

[clevited]

Hi Everyone,

 

I am a bit of a launch monitor nerd but I am not the all knowing one when it comes to Trackman 4.  I am however aware of some of its limitations and I have a growing list of misreads I have observed that manifest when I play at my local indoor simulator place.  My goal is to create sort of a one stop discussion on this as currently a lot of these nuggets of info are spread out.  If there is already a one stop shop type thread on this, forgive me and please point me in that direction.  I did not find it when I searched.

 

So for everyone, If you have first hand knowledge and can help with the "WHY" of these things I see, please by all means, post them here.

 

If you play on a Trackman and want to expand your knowledge so you can be aware of the issues they can have (even being $25k machines) this is also a good place to post.  

 

I feel like knowing about the limitations and also discussing solutions to misreads can help myself and others that either own or regularly use these machines for learning and enjoying.

 

Here are my observations from multiple seasons of indoor simulator league using Trackman 4.

 

-First, set up at my league place.  I don't know exact dimensions of everything but I have attempted to step the distances off so I should be close.  18 feet at least for sure from ball to screen.  Well over 10 feet in height floor to ceiling.  16 feet width of room and 10 feet from ball to Trackman.

 

-Next, observations from my many sessions playing league or practicing on Trackman in general.

(I used Foresight GC3 to compare and I compared with 2 different Trackman machines in two separate rooms, the room dimensions were identical)

-Observation 1:  Spin axis.  The Trackman struggles with spin axis.  Shot shape will often be not what is real.  

-Observation 2: Spin.  Spin is often wrong if using a non metallic dot ball or new ProV1 RCT.  It still has misreads of spin that show up as italicized.  This is not super frequent but frequent enough where it is annoying when playing 18 holes.

-Observation 3: Ball speed.  I have experienced many times, where Trackman shows as much as 15 mph less ball speed than actual with LW-Fairway wood.  The frequency of this issue gets worse with loft of the club.

-Observation 4: Short putts and putts in general.  We use an 8ft gimme circle when we play and it is often not enough.  When presented with a roughly 10ft downhill putt for instance, Trackman will struggle to pick up the ball.  It seems as if there is a minimum ball speed threshold you must meet for it to pick it up but that threshold for those types of putts can easily put you out of the gimme circle due to hitting it past the hole.

-Observation 5:  Club data.  Trackman misses a lot of club data, especially with driver.  It happens frequently and will entirely miss club speed, attack angle etc.

-Observation 6: Fairway wood speed.  Fairway woods seem to be measured extremely low swing speed wise.  It isn't a big deal but it bothers me on principle.  I thought it was just the hot faces of fairway woods but the numbers don't jive based on what people swing drivers at.  Some nuance to this, but my hypothesis is that TM struggles to measure these accurately rather than the fairway woods being ungodly hot.

 

This isn't a complaining thread it is a discussion thread.  Every machine has it's limitations and this widely used machine has many.

[Krt22]

I to a varying degree I experienced all of the above issues with the flightscope I owned for a few years and used almost exclusively indoors (and never did sim play on because of all the said issues). My thoughts are camera based LMs are the gold standard for indoor simulator use for a reason. Not just for accuracy, but reliability as well. For personal use you know when to throw out a misread, for simulator use that obviously gets harder. Your place looks pretty optimal in terms of room size, ball flight, etc and still had all those issues, when the room gets even smaller like most residential installs, well it's only going to get worse.

 

Except a really large room (which sort of defeats the purpose of an indoor sim), there is simply no way to completely eliminate all of the issues you have highlighted. 

 

 

[clevited]

23 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I to a varying degree I experienced all of the above issues with the flightscope I owned for a few years and used almost exclusively indoors (and never did sim play on because of all the said issues). My thoughts are camera based LMs are the gold standard for indoor simulator use for a reason. Not just for accuracy, but reliability as well. For personal use you know when to throw out a misread, for simulator use that obviously gets harder. Your place looks pretty optimal in terms of room size, ball flight, etc and still had all those issues, when the room gets even smaller like most residential installs, well it's only going to get worse.

 

Except a really large room (which sort of defeats the purpose of an indoor sim), there is simply no way to completely eliminate all of the issues you have highlighted. 

 

 

 

I know you had a Flightscope but any idea of the specific technical causes to some of the listed issues I have observed?  I know that for instance, spin axis cannot be measured directly by radar and is back calculated based on strike location (which is no doubt hard for radar to accurately read), but the ball speed one, and the fairway wood one for sure kind of confuse me.  Putting I can only imagine is from there being like a 5mph threshold where Trackman can reliably pick out the ball motion from the surrounding signal noise or something to that effect.

[Krt22]

3 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I know you had a Flightscope but any idea of the specific technical causes to some of the listed issues I have observed?  I know that for instance, spin axis cannot be measured directly by radar and is back calculated based on strike location (which is no doubt hard for radar to accurately read), but the ball speed one, and the fairway wood one for sure kind of confuse me.  Putting I can only imagine is from there being like a 5mph threshold where Trackman can reliably pick out the ball motion from the surrounding signal noise or something to that effect.

I never had ball speed issues, that was honestly the only parameter I could trust on a regular basis. I am guessing there was some interference issue that caused the ball speed problems (along with all of the others).

 

As for putting, my flightscope wasn't an X3, so it could not do putting at all, but the issues are likely as you state, simple signal to noise. Intrinsically the radar is titled at an angle and designed measure balls elevating off the ground to travel far distances. For a very short putt, the amount of signal it get's for the first part of the travel might be relatively small, combine this with the fact it's indoors where the noise levels are higher, and thus it struggles.

[Dan13]

Sounds to me like there is something going on environment wise.  Ball speed, club speed and club data issues? Spin off using an RCT ball?  That is not normal for TM4. Spin axis could be a lighting thing if it misses primarily with woods. Same with putting as it is using the camera for those super low velocities. With the impact location gear effect fix and the RCT ball TM4 should be almost to GCQ levels of accuracy indoors. 

[clevited]

3 hours ago, Dan13 said:

Sounds to me like there is something going on environment wise.  Ball speed, club speed and club data issues? Spin off using an RCT ball?  That is not normal for TM4. Spin axis could be a lighting thing if it misses primarily with woods. Same with putting as it is using the camera for those super low velocities. With the impact location gear effect fix and the RCT ball TM4 should be almost to GCQ levels of accuracy indoors. 

 

How much light does the camera need?  This place has a spot light i turn on so the rest of the lights can be turned off for better picture quality on the screen.  Can you be specific about what Trackman needs to be on par with GCQ indoors?  In my experience with radar, that is a technological impossibility but I welcome any specific suggestions.  I will pass them along to the guys that run the place.

[Dan13]

40 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

How much light does the camera need?  This place has a spot light i turn on so the rest of the lights can be turned off for better picture quality on the screen.  Can you be specific about what Trackman needs to be on par with GCQ indoors?  In my experience with radar, that is a technological impossibility but I welcome any specific suggestions.  I will pass them along to the guys that run the place.

 

If the rest of the lights are off minus one spot light that could definitely be impacting the putting and impact location which is tied to the camera.  I went down the rabbit hole on this stuff late last year. Take a look at the following if you want for reference.

 

The TXG Tour Experience youtube video on the RCT Titleist ball from late last year. They use GCQ in their studio but brought in the TM4 to compare with the RCT ball.  Total spin numbers with RCT ball were really good compared to GCQ but spin axis was off sometimes due to gear effect. In the comments Ron from GungHo Golf (Simulators) relays the lighting he uses in his studio with TM4 which is "around 30K lumens from 10 LED narrow-beam bulbs" - so pretty bright. Admittedly don't know what the official requirement is but Ron is certainly "in the know".

 

Could also look at the 2nd Swing video comparing the Launch Pro to Trackman with RCT ball. They are a TM shop and the spin numbers produced were extremely close. Not sure about driver with spin axis but they don't seem to have an extraordinary amount of lighting so any discrepancies on spin axis could be lighting.

 

Foresight/camera systems are clearly the best/safest choice for indoors but with the radar + camera tech TM and Flightscope are using they are catching up quickly.  Looking forward to seeing the reviews on the Flighscope X3 impact location which is set to come out later this year.

[clevited]

8 minutes ago, Dan13 said:

 

If the rest of the lights are off minus one spot light that could definitely be impacting the putting and impact location which is tied to the camera.  I went down the rabbit hole on this stuff late last year. Take a look at the following if you want for reference.

 

The TXG Tour Experience youtube video on the RCT Titleist ball from late last year. They use GCQ in their studio but brought in the TM4 to compare with the RCT ball.  Total spin numbers with RCT ball were really good compared to GCQ but spin axis was off sometimes due to gear effect. In the comments Ron from GungHo Golf (Simulators) relays the lighting he uses in his studio with TM4 which is "around 30K lumens from 10 LED narrow-beam bulbs" - so pretty bright. Admittedly don't know what the official requirement is but Ron is certainly "in the know".

 

Could also look at the 2nd Swing video comparing the Launch Pro to Trackman with RCT ball. They are a TM shop and the spin numbers produced were extremely close. Not sure about driver with spin axis but they don't seem to have an extraordinary amount of lighting so any discrepancies on spin axis could be lighting.

 

Foresight/camera systems are clearly the best/safest choice for indoors but with the radar + camera tech TM and Flightscope are using they are catching up quickly.  Looking forward to seeing the reviews on the Flighscope X3 impact location which is set to come out later this year.

 

Appreciate it, I will pass that along to the folks at the sim place.

[Krt22]

12 hours ago, Dan13 said:

 

If the rest of the lights are off minus one spot light that could definitely be impacting the putting and impact location which is tied to the camera.  I went down the rabbit hole on this stuff late last year. Take a look at the following if you want for reference.

 

The TXG Tour Experience youtube video on the RCT Titleist ball from late last year. They use GCQ in their studio but brought in the TM4 to compare with the RCT ball.  Total spin numbers with RCT ball were really good compared to GCQ but spin axis was off sometimes due to gear effect. In the comments Ron from GungHo Golf (Simulators) relays the lighting he uses in his studio with TM4 which is "around 30K lumens from 10 LED narrow-beam bulbs" - so pretty bright. Admittedly don't know what the official requirement is but Ron is certainly "in the know".

 

Could also look at the 2nd Swing video comparing the Launch Pro to Trackman with RCT ball. They are a TM shop and the spin numbers produced were extremely close. Not sure about driver with spin axis but they don't seem to have an extraordinary amount of lighting so any discrepancies on spin axis could be lighting.

 

Foresight/camera systems are clearly the best/safest choice for indoors but with the radar + camera tech TM and Flightscope are using they are catching up quickly.  Looking forward to seeing the reviews on the Flighscope X3 impact location which is set to come out later this year.

Do you have any personal experience using TM4 (or flightscope) extensively indoors or are you mainly going off youtube reviews?  On paper/in theory they are closing the gap, in reality I am not so sure. I have hit in trackman built simulators and experienced plenty of the issues above, as well as in my own home setup with a flightscope. It's kinda crazy that you can spend 25k on the unit and need to drop even more time/money building the perfect environment, that still may have issues. (which I did over and over lol).

 

I am also not convinced either company will ever be able to fully decipher spin axis combined with gear effect. Even if they can get a reasonable impact location, it's still not going to be fully representative for rear world ball flight since they would have to make assumptions about CG location and every driver is different, even more so with moveable weight.

[Dan13]

3 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Do you have any personal experience using TM4 (or flightscope) extensively indoors or are you mainly going off youtube reviews?  On paper/in theory they are closing the gap, in reality I am not so sure. I have hit in trackman built simulators and experienced plenty of the issues above, as well as in my own home setup with a flightscope. It's kinda crazy that you can spend 25k on the unit and need to drop even more time/money building the perfect environment, that still may have issues. (which I did over and over lol).

 

I am also not convinced either company will ever be able to fully decipher spin axis combined with gear effect. Even if they can get a reasonable impact location, it's still not going to be fully representative for rear world ball flight since they would have to make assumptions about CG location and every driver is different, even more so with moveable weight.

I do use TM4 for sim golf and to take some lessons throughout the year. The environment is commercial and is likely built to spec. So maybe 10-12 times a year. Of course w no reference it’s hard to verify the numbers but my feeling currently is that spin axis is represented pretty well on driver / gear effect hits but I would not say it’s as good as GCQ. The ball flight on those toe or heel shots with driver are noticeably different vs my M+   -   which it should be for the cost. 

[clevited]

1 hour ago, Dan13 said:

I do use TM4 for sim golf and to take some lessons throughout the year. The environment is commercial and is likely built to spec. So maybe 10-12 times a year. Of course w no reference it’s hard to verify the numbers but my feeling currently is that spin axis is represented pretty well on driver / gear effect hits but I would not say it’s as good as GCQ. The ball flight on those toe or heel shots with driver are noticeably different vs my M+   -   which it should be for the cost. 

 

I didn't have anything to directly compare the TMs to at my sim place until this year when I got a GC3.  I know from my many acquaintances that foresights camera based systems are extremely reliable when it comes pretty much all initial launch conditions.  It measures all of the directly where as TM doesn't.  So in years past, I had my feelings that TM wasn't getting things right based on feel way too often.  I confirmed that with my GC3 over the course of many rounds this year.  I know for certain, at least at my place, TM tends to be very draw heavy and it is risky for me to try to cut a shot.  I can shape it both directions pretty easily and very often, my GC3 would show my pull cut while TM showed me hitting a pull hook.  Very difficult to play well when the shot shape you are trying to hit doesn't happen.  So that stuff, I am not too surprised with but I am wondering the direct cause so lighting I am interested in investigating with the owners.  The ball speed with irons however, I didn't expect at all.  Ball speed has never been a concern of mine with any of these high end machines.  It is the easiest parameter to get right in my opinion.  Just last night I hit a 3i and I struck it well.  I know what a well struck 3i does and in this case, I barely got over the hazard I needed to carry.  That hazard wasn't even a concern, I was trying to put it on the green and based on my strike, thought I was going to.  It landed well short, and ball speed in this case was over 20 mph low.  This happens to ME all the time so I am not sure what is going on.  I thought maybe it was the shape of my iron heads but it happens on all of them.  The only thing I can think to try next is wearing a different pair of pants next time I play.  That has been the only common issue and it is a very long shot but easy to try.  I am not sure if they are radar absorbent, or radar reflecting somehow but I just cannot believe Trackman would struggle with ball speed on anything.  It doesn't with driver at all.  Ever.  

 

 

[Dan13]

3 hours ago, Krt22 said:

I am also not convinced either company will ever be able to fully decipher spin axis combined with gear effect. Even if they can get a reasonable impact location, it's still not going to be fully representative for rear world ball flight since they would have to make assumptions about CG location and every driver is different, even more so with moveable weight.

 

 I agree that spin axis reads from radar units indoors with driver won't be as accurate as GCQ / camera systems since they have to back into the spin axis number via impact location and COG assumptions. That said it should be pretty close assuming the impact location is accurately captured (lighting). The big gear effect spin axis misreads by TM should be eliminated. I assume this is also how the X3 will use the impact location that is being added this year. 

 

The next wave of radar tech is interesting as FS as a patent on using two radar signals and modulating them to directly measure spin axis. I've heard that Full Swing Kit is working on it. I'm sure TM is as well.  That would be a game changer for radar indoors although a clean long space would still be needed.

[TyNiles]

Bit of a long post incoming here but wanted to throw my 2 cents in on this. Last winter I started renting a trackman bay at one of my local fitters to get my distances sorted out and generally just make my practice sessions more productive. It had been great - then my first few rounds of the year I was VERY off with my iron distances. I was blowing my shots over the green almost every time. It was a new set of irons so I didn’t really think much of it at the time. This winter - a few different TM “lounge” type facilities opened up around here so I became a member at my local one and have been going on a weekly basis at the bare minimum. First things first - the lighting at this particular lounge is nonexistent. It’s very dark in hopes to make the screen easier to see. Second -the TM units themself are contained in protective wooden “boxes” which also cast a shadow over the unit from a viewpoint stance. Third - it’s not 10ft from the ball to the screen, it might be 6 at best.
I am saying all this because I haven’t thought my iron distances were accurate at all, they have been significantly lower than what I am used to. For reference I’m not the longest hitter out there - I play Mizuno 223 and my 8i is about 155. Driver seems about right as do my wedges, but I have struggled with fairway woods and irons. In most cases I am getting estimated spin, and I have tried with both the RCT and using metallic stickers on my own balls; have to wonder if the conditions aforementioned are causing that? 
This past Saturday I went to another facility that uses GC Hawk and what do you know - the numbers seemed spot on. 8i was going 160 and shot shape was dead on with the draw I play. Lighting was also very plentiful. Went BACK to my “home” TM facility today and my 8i was 140. Same swing. Same ball. I know that TM makes an excellent product, so I have to wonder if these facilities are ignoring the recommended setup specifications? I would love to be able to take a TM with me to my home course and spend some time on the range to see if that is more accurate, but I don’t have 30k laying around so I’ll have to go with something else 😂. 

 

[seth514]

Lighting is always the biggest issue with TM indoors. Ball striking area needs to be lit properly, and more importantly, the 10-12 ft ahead of the ball launch area should be as well. 

 

The RCT balls are a dramatic improvement over the foil stickers on normal balls. Very rarely do I see the italicized spin number. But, obviously, if you are hitting a lot these will wear out just as fast. Not sure what the comparative price is as our company just buys a lot of them.

 

Seems like if you are indoors primarily, GC Quad is the way to go. 

[karl1111]

I've had the same experience as tverall above. I'm not that experienced with indoor sims but I played a round of sim gold at a place which had TM monitors and my irons went around 10-15 meters shorter than in real life.

[clevited]

10 hours ago, Tverrall said:

Bit of a long post incoming here but wanted to throw my 2 cents in on this. Last winter I started renting a trackman bay at one of my local fitters to get my distances sorted out and generally just make my practice sessions more productive. It had been great - then my first few rounds of the year I was VERY off with my iron distances. I was blowing my shots over the green almost every time. It was a new set of irons so I didn’t really think much of it at the time. This winter - a few different TM “lounge” type facilities opened up around here so I became a member at my local one and have been going on a weekly basis at the bare minimum. First things first - the lighting at this particular lounge is nonexistent. It’s very dark in hopes to make the screen easier to see. Second -the TM units themself are contained in protective wooden “boxes” which also cast a shadow over the unit from a viewpoint stance. Third - it’s not 10ft from the ball to the screen, it might be 6 at best.
I am saying all this because I haven’t thought my iron distances were accurate at all, they have been significantly lower than what I am used to. For reference I’m not the longest hitter out there - I play Mizuno 223 and my 8i is about 155. Driver seems about right as do my wedges, but I have struggled with fairway woods and irons. In most cases I am getting estimated spin, and I have tried with both the RCT and using metallic stickers on my own balls; have to wonder if the conditions aforementioned are causing that? 
This past Saturday I went to another facility that uses GC Hawk and what do you know - the numbers seemed spot on. 8i was going 160 and shot shape was dead on with the draw I play. Lighting was also very plentiful. Went BACK to my “home” TM facility today and my 8i was 140. Same swing. Same ball. I know that TM makes an excellent product, so I have to wonder if these facilities are ignoring the recommended setup specifications? I would love to be able to take a TM with me to my home course and spend some time on the range to see if that is more accurate, but I don’t have 30k laying around so I’ll have to go with something else 😂. 

 

 

Were these numbers seen when playing Trackman's virtual golf or using Trackman's practice range?  I need to confirm but I do think the iron issues I have (low ball speed frequently) is a problem with the Virtual Golf software.  I am not sure if it is cannibalizing the data sent from the Trackman or if the Trackman unit itself isn't operating at full functionality when playing the simulator.  The range seems to miss club data much less often and has yet to get ball speed wrong (I hit about a dozen irons on it the other day and intend to do more this week).  

 

There are also the elevations of the golf courses one plays in Virtual Golf.  You can't learn anything really about your stock yardages playing that game.  You would be best served to use the Trackman practice range area.

[TyNiles]

On 3/7/2022 at 9:45 AM, clevited said:

 

Were these numbers seen when playing Trackman's virtual golf or using Trackman's practice range?  I need to confirm but I do think the iron issues I have (low ball speed frequently) is a problem with the Virtual Golf software.  I am not sure if it is cannibalizing the data sent from the Trackman or if the Trackman unit itself isn't operating at full functionality when playing the simulator.  The range seems to miss club data much less often and has yet to get ball speed wrong (I hit about a dozen irons on it the other day and intend to do more this week).  

 

There are also the elevations of the golf courses one plays in Virtual Golf.  You can't learn anything really about your stock yardages playing that game.  You would be best served to use the Trackman practice range area.

Bit of an update here - but to answer your question it was happening with both the range and golf itself. I went back to the location with Hawk yesterday and my numbers were spot on (8i between 150-160) which on my 3rd day of hitting I would have expected a little bit of distance drop off but that wasn't the case. I would think that the main issue here is with the configuration of the Trackman lounges - and not the device itself. This does however open up a floodgate of questions for me surrounding the accuracy of TM data indoors. I am always leery of being the person to say that the distances don't seem correct when I feel like they're shorter because everyone hates that person. But I do think that I have enough data now to say that this could be happening here, depending on the situation. 

[Krt22]

15 minutes ago, Tverrall said:

Bit of an update here - but to answer your question it was happening with both the range and golf itself. I went back to the location with Hawk yesterday and my numbers were spot on (8i between 150-160) which on my 3rd day of hitting I would have expected a little bit of distance drop off but that wasn't the case. I would think that the main issue here is with the configuration of the Trackman lounges - and not the device itself. This does however open up a floodgate of questions for me surrounding the accuracy of TM data indoors. I am always leery of being the person to say that the distances don't seem correct when I feel like they're shorter because everyone hates that person. But I do think that I have enough data now to say that this could be happening here, depending on the situation. 

That is the inherent issue with using radar indoors. If they are not setup well, they can have multiple issues. A poor environment can make a 25k device less accurate than a 2k device, but you would only know this if you practice/play a lot or have a second reference point to baseline the data. 

[TyNiles]

7 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

That is the inherent issue with using radar indoors. If they are not setup well, they can have multiple issues. A poor environment can make a 25k device less accurate than a 2k device, but you would only know this if you practice/play a lot or have a second reference point to baseline the data. 

Exactly. I'm just lucky that a location close to me has Hawk now - for those times that I really need to get my club distances down, etc. 

[clevited]

Yeah, I wouldn't have known the extent of the issues with the Trackman's I play on if it wasn't for my GC3.

[clevited]

I have pretty well confirmed the ball speed issue I have is with Virtual Golf not the Trackman itself.  Shot shape is no different when in practice mode vs Virtual Golf.  It still stinks.  I had all of the lights on in the room, still bad.  I really think it comes down to Trackman either not seeing impact location as well as it claims it can (consistently), and or, it can't account for the CG location nor can it account for bulge and roll on drivers and fairway woods.  It is guessing at best indoors and I don't think any amount of light will improve that enough to not be confusing and problematic.

 

Spin wise, the new balls help a ton.  HLA, VLA, Swing Speed (when it picks it up, it struggles with wedges and driver for me at times).  That ball speed primarily with irons is what is driving me more nuts than shot shape issues currently.  Hard to learn from mistakes if you don't know if its YOUR mistake or the machine's imo.

[md1982]

On 3/10/2022 at 10:31 AM, clevited said:

I have pretty well confirmed the ball speed issue I have is with Virtual Golf not the Trackman itself.  Shot shape is no different when in practice mode vs Virtual Golf.  It still stinks.  I had all of the lights on in the room, still bad.  I really think it comes down to Trackman either not seeing impact location as well as it claims it can (consistently), and or, it can't account for the CG location nor can it account for bulge and roll on drivers and fairway woods.  It is guessing at best indoors and I don't think any amount of light will improve that enough to not be confusing and problematic.

 

Spin wise, the new balls help a ton.  HLA, VLA, Swing Speed (when it picks it up, it struggles with wedges and driver for me at times).  That ball speed primarily with irons is what is driving me more nuts than shot shape issues currently.  Hard to learn from mistakes if you don't know if its YOUR mistake or the machine's imo.

 

 

100% spot on with the Spin Axis issues. I’ve done very extensive testing with RCT balls, as well as my gamer zstarxv (with TrackMan purchased metallic dots). Couple of things I will note: TrackMan struggles indoor with impact location and club data with higher swing speeds (I am 96mph with my 7, 115 with my driver) unless you have OERT turned on in the settings page. Today while testing, I found that TrackMan was giving me even greater spin axis issues with this on versus turned off. For example, two swings with a similar club path within .2, and a similar face to path within .2, one had a spin axis that was 4 times worse.. 

 

I have been telling my playing partner during league that some of the shot shapes are just not registering correctly. He literally said multiple times this session “I haven’t seen your ball flight do that the entire summer, and now out of the blue in the middle of the round?” The TXG video really highlighted it. I am just digging into this and hope to find a solution to make the on course gameplay more enjoyable. As for the ball speed issue during play, I will note, the “power” % is ball speed not yardage. If you are in the rough, even the first cut, the longer the club the more drastic effect it has. 
 

FYI, I play off a 2 outdoors, so I tend to hit the ball pretty well in general. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by md1982

[clevited]

1 hour ago, md1982 said:

 

 

100% spot on with the Spin Axis issues. I’ve done very extensive testing with RCT balls, as well as my gamer zstarxv (with TrackMan purchased metallic dots). Couple of things I will note: TrackMan struggles indoor with impact location and club data with higher swing speeds (I am 96mph with my 7, 115 with my driver) unless you have OERT turned on in the settings page. Today while testing, I found that TrackMan was giving me even greater spin axis issues with this on versus turned off. For example, two swings with a similar club path within .2, and a similar face to path within .2, one had a spin axis that was 4 times worse.. 

 

I have been telling my playing partner during league that some of the shot shapes are just not registering correctly. He literally said multiple times this session “I haven’t seen your ball flight do that the entire summer, and now out of the blue in the middle of the round?” The TXG video really highlighted it. I am just digging into this and hope to find a solution to make the on course gameplay more enjoyable. As for the ball speed issue during play, I will note, the “power” % is ball speed not yardage. If you are in the rough, even the first cut, the longer the club the more drastic effect it has. 
 

FYI, I play off a 2 outdoors, so I tend to hit the ball pretty well in general. 

 

Good stuff.  Ball speed issue happens regardless of ball location.  Fairway is included.  Are you able to test that problem at your place?  I used my GC3 to test shot shape issues with TM and accidentally discovered the ball speed issue on approach shots in VG2.  

[mgoblue83]

I'm skeptical of TM4 misreading ball speed. Of all the parameters that would be the one I would trust the most. Even $100 radars measure ball speed to 99.9% accuracy. 

[clevited]

21 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

I'm skeptical of TM4 misreading ball speed. Of all the parameters that would be the one I would trust the most. Even $100 radars measure ball speed to 99.9% accuracy. 

 

I don't think TM is misreading ball speed.  I believe I mentioned this earlier in this thread but it is worth mentioning again.  TM works fine in practice mode (non VG range).  Never gets ball speed wrong with any iron.  GC3 and TM agreed within a mph or two when using the TM range.  In VG however, even off the fairway, many approach shots would show upwards of 20 mph low on ball speed compared to GC3.  The ball would always be much shorter as a result.  I thought it was just little ol inconsistent me until I started bringing my GC3. 

 

Someone please try that and see if you get the same thing.  I have mentioned this multiple times to my simulator place manager but nothing has come of it.  I feel like VG has a bug where it will randomly but also too often nerf the approach shot ball speed delivered by the TM unit to the game.

Edited December 8, 2022 by clevited

[mgoblue83]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

I don't think TM is misreading ball speed.  I believe I mentioned this earlier in this thread but it is worth mentioning again.  TM works fine in practice mode (non VG range).  Never gets ball speed wrong with any iron.  GC3 and TM agreed within a mph or two when using the TM range.  In VG however, even off the fairway, many approach shots would show upwards of 20 mph low on ball speed compared to GC3.  The ball would always be much shorter as a result.  I thought it was just little ol inconsistent me until I started bringing my GC3. 

 

Someone please try that and see if you get the same thing.  I have mentioned this multiple times to my simulator place manager but nothing has come of it.  I feel like VG has a bug where it will randomly but also too often nerf the approach shot ball speed delivered by the TM unit to the game.

 

Can't argue with what you are seeing and I have no idea why that is happening. My experience with VG is that it's by far the best software package available for simulated play. The course options, graphics, user interface and overall enjoyment is just fantastic even if there are occasional misreads on spin axis. I have seen maybe one misread on irons and wedges and it's only "wrong" on extreme toe hits with woods. Anything somewhat centered matches what I expect. 

[clevited]

1 hour ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

Can't argue with what you are seeing and I have no idea why that is happening. My experience with VG is that it's by far the best software package available for simulated play. The course options, graphics, user interface and overall enjoyment is just fantastic even if there are occasional misreads on spin axis. I have seen maybe one misread on irons and wedges and it's only "wrong" on extreme toe hits with woods. Anything somewhat centered matches what I expect. 

 

I am just trying to find out if the software as a whole has a bug, or if it is just some weird issue with my sim place's copies.  Seems odd it would be only their copies.  If you haven't looked into GSPRO, you should.  I used to play JNPG before it got bought by TM and from what I can tell, they have put very little effort into making that software any better.  GSPRO is new but is being heavily supported and is created by sim golfers for sim golfers.  It gains new features at least each year and has a lot of community input.  Physics of the ball to me is significantly better than VG.  I can't stand the unrealistic one hop stops on low spin greenside chips for instance.  Going to completely mess up my summer play again next year lol.

[Greanhouse]

My understanding is that TM ain't great for indoor and therefore virtual golf in general due to the spin issues indoor.

 

When I've tried to dive into it everyone I talk to kind of defaults to "you deal with occassional spin issues to avoid putting stickers on your clubs and that is why the TM is great". lol  FWIW I've put dots on my clubs once so far and have played with them on the actual course 20 times or so.

 

For the ball speed issue, eliminate VG first.  Use your GC to measure shots against TM in VG and Range.  If VG is giving lower speeds than Range you know its the VG software.

 

I agree with others, of all things TM does well its ball speed.

 

 

[Canterburygc]

So I own a TM4 and play VG a lot. The ball speed only changes when you are in the rough or somewhere else other than the tee or fairway. It penalizes shot power by dropping ball speed. (It also changes the spin). What is displayed in the metrics after the shot is the calculated ball speed not the actual. A lot of the rough is impacted by as much as 15% which is a lot IMO but pretty easy to club up as it’s displayed in the bottom corner of the screen where it shows the lie. 
 

For the record, in my sim room I have 18 ft exactly and use RCT balls and TM seems dead nuts on pretty much ever metric. Occasionally it will misread spin but I would say 1 out of 50 balls. My only complaints are with the software updates which tend to improve certain aspects (putting /chipping etc) but seem to create new bugs. 

[clevited]

On 12/11/2022 at 9:12 PM, Canterburygc said:

So I own a TM4 and play VG a lot. The ball speed only changes when you are in the rough or somewhere else other than the tee or fairway. It penalizes shot power by dropping ball speed. (It also changes the spin). What is displayed in the metrics after the shot is the calculated ball speed not the actual. A lot of the rough is impacted by as much as 15% which is a lot IMO but pretty easy to club up as it’s displayed in the bottom corner of the screen where it shows the lie. 
 

For the record, in my sim room I have 18 ft exactly and use RCT balls and TM seems dead nuts on pretty much ever metric. Occasionally it will misread spin but I would say 1 out of 50 balls. My only complaints are with the software updates which tend to improve certain aspects (putting /chipping etc) but seem to create new bugs. 

 

This was my suspicion a while back but I do find it absolutely bazaar that it would should you calculated speed rather than LM speed which is the whole point of having data tiles up (so you can monitor your performance, like confirm your contact by seeing a typical ball speed for a given club).  I did test the fairway before (last year) and I had the same issue happen there.  Lies that were supposed to be 100% power still showed low ball speed.  I have just started my winter season and have yet to see this happen after one round of 9 holes so perhaps it has been fixed or perhaps there are some fairways improperly coded such that they spit out lower ball speed.

 

I still find it very bazaar that they would show game ball speed and not LM ball speed.  That isn't helpful in the slightest to me and just asks for confusion for people.

 

Thanks for the post.