New Tiger Woods Launch Monitor

[comoco]

Would you mind to share what is minimum length behind the ball needed? My usual driving range has limited space 😞

Edited December 1, 2021 by comoco

[marmot8]

Reached out to support today to inquire as to the normalization capabilities.  Received the following response within 15 minutes ( kudos to the team!):

 

“At this time the LM does not have a normalization setting.  that functionality is on the road map but no time table has been set.

Today the LM only tracks actual flight information and does not account for outside variables

Hope this helps”

[scc13]

11 hours ago, comoco said:

Would you mind to share what is minimum length behind the ball needed? My usual driving range has limited space 😞

I had no problem with 6-8 feet

[scc13]

Mini review - 

 

I have had 4 sessions with it now. 

 

The main thing that drew me to it versus the Bushnell was the club data without having to use the reflective dots.  I use the numbers of the device to validate/invalidate my feels.  Considering I used crappy range balls during these sessions, I was less fussed with accuracy of carry, but more about clubhead speed, path, face, etc.  

 

I found the setup/alignment super easy to do.  After an initial set up session, when I get to the range, I am 20 seconds away from being up and running.  The display of four data points on device (which you can customize) is super helpful - I didn't like on the mevo etc having to grab my phone to see what happened.  Additionally, you can pair it with phone or Ipad (I haven't tried the watch yet) to get all 16 data points.  While "worm view" video isn't super helpful, it is a nice bonus to have - to be able to see every single swing.   Switching clubs or deleting a truly bad shot is easy - take one second on the app.

 

Two of the sessions I had were with very seasoned instructors who "validated" the numbers as matching what they would expect.  One of which had tested it side by side with a trackman and got similar results.  For 1/5 the cost, I am not expecting the perfection of the Trackman, I just want directionally correct (hopefully very correct) numbers.   I am also banking on continued improvement through firmware updates.

 

I was excited to get the device, but a little apprehensive - this has surpassed my expectations.

[shanerbanner10]

Any idea if this will be compatible with GS Pro or other sim software's?

[amj6135]

MGS just released their comparison against GCQ and its not pretty 

[Dan13]

There is a picture in the review of testing it indoors. Certainly hope it was an outdoor test. FSK said it is not ready for indoor use. 

[gibbiesmalls]

26 minutes ago, Dan13 said:

There is a picture in the review of testing it indoors. Certainly hope it was an outdoor test. FSK said it is not ready for indoor use. 

 

Looks to have been indoors. Along with the picture, you can see him taking some swings and displaying data in an indoor simulator.

 

Premature review it seems like.

[pdxhak]

33 minutes ago, amj6135 said:

MGS just released their comparison against GCQ and its not pretty 

 

Did they compare both units outside or indoors?

[Dan13]

47 minutes ago, gibbiesmalls said:

 

Looks to have been indoors. Along with the picture, you can see him taking some swings and displaying data in an indoor simulator.

 

Premature review it seems like.

MGS says it was outside. 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Dan13
Confirmed outside testing

[gibbiesmalls]

35 minutes ago, Dan13 said:

MGS says it was outside. 

Then yeah, that doesn't bode well for FSK.

 

Though his PW spin numbers on the quad do raise some eyebrows.

[amj6135]

1 hour ago, pdxhak said:

 

Did they compare both units outside or indoors?

 

MGS says it was conducted outside. Full Swing seems to have rushed an unproved product out to try and save sells from the GC3/LP and Mevo+ Pro Package and MGS called them out on it.  Hard to believe it's been in the public's hands for over a month and this is the first real review and comparison.    

Edited December 17, 2021 by amj6135

[pdxhak]

I still have high hopes for the FSK and will hold off judgement until reviews are available with their updated firmware. I like there are a few options now and all these companies realize it is a competitive space and will have to improve their offerings.

[hammersia]

26 minutes ago, pdxhak said:

I still have high hopes for the FSK and will hold off judgement until reviews are available with their updated firmware. I like there are a few options now and all these companies realize it is a competitive space and will have to improve their offerings.

Absolutely the competition element we need for launch monitors. I’m sure we’ve all followed MGS a lot, but I’ve commented before that their launch monitor reviews have been pretty sketchy in the past, re their continued acclaim for Rapsodo which doesn’t seem to tally with the market experience.

 

This story has a way to go.

[pnd4pnd]

I also have high hopes for FSK. If the hardware is right, firmware will continue to improve accuracy. There is new firmware coming soon which will have big improvements, especially with swing path and carry. I'm sure trackman/flightscope weren't nearly as accurate with their first productreleases. It takes time to collect data and improve results. Now everyone is going to say they shouldn't have released the product before that was there. That's not the way tech works. We are all beta testers to some point (Tesla is a great example and WAY more expensive than FSK). There are early adopters and late adopters. Early adopters are willing to invest in something they believe in and provide feedback to improve products. Vote with your wallet, but crapping all over a product that is changing the game for launch monitors benefits no one. Remember this is 20% of the cost of a TM4. Get your expectations right - if you are expecting .1% correlation to TM, buy a TM instead. I'm choosing to work with them to get it as close as possible. Time will tell if it pays off or not.

[marmot8]

3 hours ago, pnd4pnd said:

I also have high hopes for FSK. If the hardware is right, firmware will continue to improve accuracy. There is new firmware coming soon which will have big improvements, especially with swing path and carry. I'm sure trackman/flightscope weren't nearly as accurate with their first productreleases. It takes time to collect data and improve results. Now everyone is going to say they shouldn't have released the product before that was there. That's not the way tech works. We are all beta testers to some point (Tesla is a great example and WAY more expensive than FSK). There are early adopters and late adopters. Early adopters are willing to invest in something they believe in and provide feedback to improve products. Vote with your wallet, but crapping all over a product that is changing the game for launch monitors benefits no one. Remember this is 20% of the cost of a TM4. Get your expectations right - if you are expecting .1% correlation to TM, buy a TM instead. I'm choosing to work with them to get it as close as possible. Time will tell if it pays off or not.

I am one of those early adopters that is hoping that it works out long term - which admittingly is scary given the cost.  I'm at the end of the 15 day return window and have been giving it a lot of thought the last couple of days.

 

Ultimately, I want a tool for use at an outdoor range, not for simulator.  For that reason, I feel like this is the best thing currently available at this price point; if Mevo+ made more sense, I'd obviously go down, but going up to the GC3 is too much cost for me to stomach.  I have to believe that the hardware is there (though if anyone more tech focused than me can speak to that, I'd appreciate it), and it will primarily be a matter of being patient on firmware updates that only get better and better (as we've seen with the Mevo+).  They're clearly working on indoor ability plus normalization (if I believe the rep who replied to my email - as noted above in this thread), so I'm on the fence but leaning towards sticking it out...

 

From my experience, it seems like a great product.  Seamless to set up and use.  Quick, picks up nearly every shot (maybe 2 misses a range session).  The numbers, to me, seem like what I would expect OTHER than (1) the carry isn't as far as I hit it and (2) the "total" number is jacked up.  My true carry is in between the two numbers, and balls don't run out as much as the device seems to suggest.  So, I have to think that can get solved through firmware updates (but, as noted above, I'd appreciate input from anyone more knowledgeable).

 

Build quality is awesome, excellent case that comes with it.  I think it can be a real winner, in time.  A company as reputable as FS, with Tiger's name attached to it, has to want to keep making it better; it would be a huge knock in my opinion if they don't get it as perfect as possible.

Edited December 17, 2021 by marmot8
Add more info

[HiTrajLoSpin]

flightscope_trajectory_optimizer_2021-12-17_1737.pdf

 

Although I've owned a FlightScope Mevo+ for about a year, I'm still following the FullSwing Kit (FSK) development with considerable interest. 

 

After looking at the MGS data comparing the Foresight GCQuad (GCQ) with the FSK, I thought it would be interesting to input the ball speed/launch angle/spin data from each unit into the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer (FTO) and then compare the results for Carry Distance (CD).

 

Note, when I've taken ball speed/launch angle/spin output data from my Mevo+ and input it into the FTO, the CD results were the same, which indicates to me that the Mevo+ is using the same ball flight algorithm as the FTO (not surprising).

 

The results are shown in the table for FTO standard sea level conditions (77°, 50% humidity, 14.7 psi); the only comment I have is that it seems the FSK ball flight CD algorithm probably needs to be tweaked before the actual ball speed/launch angle/spin data are called into question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2021 by HiTrajLoSpin

[marmot8]

11 hours ago, HiTrajLoSpin said:

flightscope_trajectory_optimizer_2021-12-17_1737.pdf 30 kB · 7 downloads

 

Although I've owned a FlightScope Mevo+ for about a year, I'm still following the FullSwing Kit (FSK) development with considerable interest. 

 

After looking at the MGS data comparing the Foresight GCQuad (GCQ) with the FSK, I thought it would be interesting to input the ball speed/launch angle/spin data from each unit into the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer (FTO) and then compare the results for Carry Distance (CD).

 

Note, when I've taken ball speed/launch angle/spin output data from my Mevo+ and input it into the FTO, the CD results were the same, which indicates to me that the Mevo+ is using the same ball flight algorithm as the FTO (not surprising).

 

The results are shown in the table for FTO standard sea level conditions (77°, 50% humidity, 14.7 psi); the only comment I have is that it seems the FSK ball flight CD algorithm probably needs to be tweaked before the actual ball speed/launch angle/spin data are called into question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very helpful.  From how I read it, your results seem to be in line with what I was seeing - carry is low and total is close but high.  Actual number is in-between the two.  Surely they'll be able to fix that...

[Dan13]

14 hours ago, HiTrajLoSpin said:

flightscope_trajectory_optimizer_2021-12-17_1737.pdf 30 kB · 11 downloads

 

Although I've owned a FlightScope Mevo+ for about a year, I'm still following the FullSwing Kit (FSK) development with considerable interest. 

 

After looking at the MGS data comparing the Foresight GCQuad (GCQ) with the FSK, I thought it would be interesting to input the ball speed/launch angle/spin data from each unit into the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer (FTO) and then compare the results for Carry Distance (CD).

 

Note, when I've taken ball speed/launch angle/spin output data from my Mevo+ and input it into the FTO, the CD results were the same, which indicates to me that the Mevo+ is using the same ball flight algorithm as the FTO (not surprising).

 

The results are shown in the table for FTO standard sea level conditions (77°, 50% humidity, 14.7 psi); the only comment I have is that it seems the FSK ball flight CD algorithm probably needs to be tweaked before the actual ball speed/launch angle/spin data are called into question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This made me think about the MGS ball test review which demonstrates that even though the ball speed and spin can be nearly the same the carry distances can vary noticeably. So for all these PLMs using algorithms to calculate carry distance which "ball" is baked into their algorithm?  Its not that the Foresight or Flightscope Optimizer is "wrong" because they don't match it is just the assumed ball flight characteristics are different.

[DS12312]

14 hours ago, HiTrajLoSpin said:

flightscope_trajectory_optimizer_2021-12-17_1737.pdf 30 kB · 12 downloads

 

Although I've owned a FlightScope Mevo+ for about a year, I'm still following the FullSwing Kit (FSK) development with considerable interest. 

 

After looking at the MGS data comparing the Foresight GCQuad (GCQ) with the FSK, I thought it would be interesting to input the ball speed/launch angle/spin data from each unit into the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer (FTO) and then compare the results for Carry Distance (CD).

 

Note, when I've taken ball speed/launch angle/spin output data from my Mevo+ and input it into the FTO, the CD results were the same, which indicates to me that the Mevo+ is using the same ball flight algorithm as the FTO (not surprising).

 

The results are shown in the table for FTO standard sea level conditions (77°, 50% humidity, 14.7 psi); the only comment I have is that it seems the FSK ball flight CD algorithm probably needs to be tweaked before the actual ball speed/launch angle/spin data are called into question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It looked like the Foresight ball flight model underestimated carry unless it was a low spin driver.  I tend to believe the Flightscope Optimizer as that has been widely accepted as accurate.  I agree Full Swing Kit should be able to update their carry/ball flight model.  Hopefully it's fixed in a firmware update quickly.

[DS12312]

1 minute ago, Dan13 said:

This made me think about the MGS ball test review which demonstrates that even though the ball speed and spin can be nearly the same the carry distances can vary noticeably. So for all these PLMs using algorithms to calculate carry distance which "ball" is baked into their algorithm?  Its not that the Foresight or Flightscope Optimizer is "wrong" because they don't match it is just the assumed ball flight characteristics are different.

I think that's the biggest thing people need to realize is that every ball flight model is slightly different and each one isn't "wrong".  There should be one that is considered accurate or accepted as most accurate to get a baseline comparison.

[HoganHO]

I am looking for a personal LM that has the following characteristics:

 

1. EASY to set up ( I have owned Mevo(non-plus), Rapsodo and found both non-user friendly) I just want to press a button, put it down and start working.

 

2. Outdoor only. In other words, I do not have an indoor setup and do not desire to have one (sort of) I live in SoCal and can get to the range most days of the year.

 

anyone brought it out on the course with them?

 

3. Very good accuracy. I want to be able to really dial in my distance gaps and practice this swings/feels with reasonable feedback. Would be most interested in my gapping from say 120-40 yards. Also would want to use to work on my swing mechanics (I.e. path, attack angle, face angle…)

interested in my dispersion patterns through the bag.

 

4. Easy data retrieval—in other words want to be able to get home, open the app and easily derive my distances, data etc.

 

5. High quality build 

 

Does the FSK hit all these marks? Seems like it.

Edited December 19, 2021 by HoganHO

[Dan13]

Although I do think FSK will get it worked out the recent review by MGS on it was not very good so it may have some issues initially. It does seem like FSK checks all your boxes. Could also go with the Launch Pro/GC3 as well - easy set up, accurate, good build quality. Loosing some data (face angle) vs FSK though. 

[HoganHO]

The MGS review (while concerning at face value) does not seem to be in line with others personal reports here. That said, I get it that they’re putting it head to head with the GCQuad. 

And, if I wanted to spend the $$$ for a TM or GCQuad, the FSK wouldn’t be a consideration.

[HoganHO]

Just pulled the trigger! 

[marmot8]

1 hour ago, HoganHO said:

Just pulled the trigger! 

Congrats.  I truly do think it checks all the boxes you (and I) are looking for, and will only get better over time.  Let that 15 day window slide and I'm committed...

[HiTrajLoSpin]

9 hours ago, Dan13 said:

This made me think about the MGS ball test review which demonstrates that even though the ball speed and spin can be nearly the same the carry distances can vary noticeably. So for all these PLMs using algorithms to calculate carry distance which "ball" is baked into their algorithm?  Its not that the Foresight or Flightscope Optimizer is "wrong" because they don't match it is just the assumed ball flight characteristics are different.

 

Once a golf ball is launched, its trajectory is only affected by aerodynamic (lift and drag) and gravitational forces. The differential equations describing that trajectory are not mysterious, and incorporate those forces in a straightforward manner. 

 

However, because the lift and drag forces are complicated functions of atmospheric conditions, velocity, spin, and dimple design, solution of the equations can become more difficult. Golf ball manufacturers probably have pretty accurate models for their particular balls, but I doubt they're available to launch monitor makers. Thus, it's not straightforward for launch monitor algorithms to accurately predict the various flight parameters.

[HoganHO]

Some kind of “combine” function would be cool…

[HoganHO]

Wonder if they can build any putting functionality in eventually.

[DS12312]

They should, if TM and Flightscope have that function, it will just be if they "choose" to add it