Question about Mevo+ Pro setup requirements

[CaptainSlow]

I curently have a gen 1 skytrak and thinking of upgrading to either the Skytrak+ or Mevo+ Pro.  I like some of the additional features of the Mevo like attack angle, low point, dymanic loft etc that the Skytrak doesnt offer.  My question:  My sim setup puts the center of my mat 7 feet from the back wall and 7 feet to the screen.  The spec distance is 8Ft behind and 8-13 feet of ball flight.  Can someone with a mevo+ tell me if it will work with 7 feet either side?  Also if I move the ball up for driver, I would be about 8 feet from the wall but only about 6 feet to the screen. 

 

Any advice here would be helpful.

 

Thanks.   

[Dan13]

I have a M+. The instructions say 7-9 feet behind the ball and at least 8 feet in front with 13 preferred. My setup is 7’ behind the ball and 9 in front. 
 

Based on your space I think you have to go S+. The data you get from a 7’ / 7’ setup would be spotty. 

[CaptainSlow]

Thanks for the reply.  I'm leaning the same way but would be nice to have that additional data.

[storm3]

Radar based LMs generally need a minimum of 16 feet between the LM and screen (plus a couple feet extra clearance from the wall for the LM and screen/net so 18 feet is a more realistic wall to wall requirement).
 

At less than 15 feet you will likely be limited to camera based options.

[tets]

 

not sure if this helps

[Stroh13]

I’m considering a similar set up with the M+.  Those of you that have it:  

My set up would be 8-10 behind 10-13 in front.

What would the variance of pick up from behind the ball be? I.E. How far left or right can you hit from on the mat and it still pick up accurately?

[Dan13]

The distances you have sound very good. Only need 8 behind so 13+ in front  would be the best case set up. (No metal or fans around right?)

 

The hitting area is officially a circle with a diameter of 8 inches. Actual hitting area is bigger and seems to still work very well. Say at least 6-8inches in any direction from the perfect “spot”. 

[Stroh13]

Thanks for this reply. 6-8” either way drastically reduces the amount of rafter alterations that I would have to do. 

[G104]

I am considering mevo+ pro for backyard use. In the winter I won’t have the required indoor space so I know I won’t get ball data, but would I still get club data? Are the path and face angle data camera-based?

[Dan13]

1 hour ago, G104 said:

I am considering mevo+ pro for backyard use. In the winter I won’t have the required indoor space so I know I won’t get ball data, but would I still get club data? Are the path and face angle data camera-based?

Yes. Should still get club data even with less than required space. Path is measured with radar tracking center of mass of the club head. Face angle is calculated based on other measured data. No camera use for either. 
 

Sure you don’t want to look at a camera based system for winter? 

[G104]

Thank you for the respone

 

All the camera systems require annoying subscriptions or I would have

[Dan13]

2 hours ago, G104 said:

Thank you for the respone

 

All the camera systems require annoying subscriptions or I would have

Keep your eye on square. It’s not the game improvement tool that M+ is but the data accuracy is improving and it may already be better for simulation. 

[G104]

My primary goal is swing improvement, not sim game playing so that is how i optimized (with the option for sim play down the road).

 

If GarminR50 had the capacity to add multiple camera angles that would have been my camera-based choice . Otherwise, i would have waited for G50 update or skytrak subscriptions price drop or drive 3 miles to the PGA superstore for unlimited sim use at far less that subscriptions (other than gaming).

 

That, plus a Mevo discount is why i am where i am

[G104]

…other than garmin…

 

darn spell check!