E.Molinari on Trackman vs Flightscope

[Robbierob99]

I don't know how flightscope works, but trackman doesn't care where you put the ball so long as its in the area.... ITS ALWAYS exactly FROM THE BALL to the target, no matter where you put the ball.

This is why 2 trackman(s) side by side always give as close to as exact numbers as is with the machines margin of error.


Pretty sure this is correct.

 

[mgranato]

I don't know how flightscope works, but trackman doesn't care where you put the ball so long as its in the area.... ITS ALWAYS exactly FROM THE BALL to the target, no matter where you put the ball.

Yep, same for both units. The above is just a crude illustration showing that the balls don't have to be hit from on the "camera line".

 

[mjstrong]

I know who he is. It was an low blow jab at his game lately and I regret doing it.

I think he's been sidelined with a wrist injury for some time...no?

 

[gmbtempe]

I don't know how flightscope works, but trackman doesn't care where you put the ball so long as its in the area.... ITS ALWAYS exactly FROM THE BALL to the target, no matter where you put the ball.

This is why 2 trackman(s) side by side always give as close to as exact numbers as is with the machines margin of error.


Pretty sure this is correct.

See you learn every day, I had thought it was important to have the device set up in a precise way, did not realize it could be off line and angled yet get very precise path and face data.

 

[tongzilla]

May sound silly, but you should also test 2 trackmans together to see what differences are, and 2 flightscopes together too.

 

[ekennedy]

May sound silly, but you should also test 2 trackmans together to see what differences are, and 2 flightscopes together too.

It's been done. It did not go well.

 

[Michael Jacobs]

Hey that's my x2 unit and lap top and that's Brian's trackman

 

[GaryC_47]

See you learn every day, I had thought it was important to have the device set up in a precise way, did not realize it could be off line and angled yet get very precise path and face data.

This is something I have always wondered about...

Since the device doesn't know where the ball is it must have to reverse engineer the ball location from the ball flight data and what it "sees" of the back of the club head while filtering out all the "noise" of impact. So the position of the golf ball at impact is a calculated value.

How precise can that be when the device requires no ball position calibration?

Because of this I question the precision of the path, face, AofA, etc. numbers for the TMII. Not sure if it is related but TMII in 2011 had VSP issues when a shot was aimed 20 yards right or left of the target, for example.

Flightscope setup requires a ball origin procedure be followed so the sensor at least has a good idea of where the ball should be located prior to impact. The closer to the "spot" the more precise the data reported. Makes sense to me.

I own a X2 and have done extensive side by side testing with another X2 and a TMII. Lot's of differences between FS and TM and impossible to say which is correct.

 

[tongzilla]

It's been done. It did not go well.

what were the results?

 

[mgranato]

Hey that's my x2 unit and lap top and that's Brian's trackman

Yeah, I bootlegged the fool out of your pic.

 

[Frans@France]

Not sure if it is related but TMII in 2011 had VSP issues when a shot was aimed 20 yards right or left of the target, for example.

duh..... It's a radar beam pointing in the direction of the target and then you start swinging outside the beam and question the value of some data?? That would be like swinging outside the view of a camera and then questioning why the swing was not recorded!

 

[Frans@France]

I own a X2 and have done extensive side by side testing with another X2 and a TMII. Lot's of differences between FS and TM and impossible to say which is correct.

So unit I "fires" some radar beams for which it knows exactly how\what and when to a ball/golf club and then receives the reflected radar beams that were "fired" by unit II...............What do you think will happen to the data?

Until Tuxen or Flightscope explains that their units sends unique modulated signals and that they don't interfere with each other I would not believe any test-results where two radar units are placed side-by-side

 

[wulsy]

I ate two apples the other day. One tasted better than the other.

 

[GaryC_47]

duh..... It's a radar beam pointing in the direction of the target and then you start swinging outside the beam and question the value of some data?? That would be like swinging outside the view of a camera and then questioning why the swing was not recorded!

It's not a problem for the X2. Trackman, Tuxen, has acknowledged there was a problem with that version TMII.

The "beam" is a microwave emitted from a phased array radar in a V, not a straight line to the target. In any case we're talking about the clubhead 3 metres in front of the unit.

 

[GaryC_47]

So unit I "fires" some radar beams for which it knows exactly how\what and when to a ball/golf club and then receives the reflected radar beams that were "fired" by unit II...............What do you think will happen to the data?

Until Tuxen or Flightscope explains that their units sends unique modulated signals and that they don't interfere with each other I would not believe any test-results where two radar units are placed side-by-side

The frequency of the transmitter is indicated on the label on the device. My X2 is 10.505 Ghz. As long as there is adequate separation of frequencies there should be no interference. (think fm radio tuner.) In fact one of our X2's frequency was too close to the TM and would not function properly in side by side tests. The two X2's didn't interfere with each other so I was able to test X2 vs TM and X2 vs X2.

Also, I didn't just throw the 2 units on the ground and start hitting balls. I followed a well thought out protocol for my tests. Could there have been interference? Possibly. But the devices reported similar numbers when used side by side as they did when used standalone.

 

[cwdlaw223]

This is something I have always wondered about...

Since the device doesn't know where the ball is it must have to reverse engineer the ball location from the ball flight data and what it "sees" of the back of the club head while filtering out all the "noise" of impact. So the position of the golf ball at impact is a calculated value.

How precise can that be when the device requires no ball position calibration?

Because of this I question the precision of the path, face, AofA, etc. numbers for the TMII. Not sure if it is related but TMII in 2011 had VSP issues when a shot was aimed 20 yards right or left of the target, for example.

Flightscope setup requires a ball origin procedure be followed so the sensor at least has a good idea of where the ball should be located prior to impact. The closer to the "spot" the more precise the data reported. Makes sense to me.

I own a X2 and have done extensive side by side testing with another X2 and a TMII. Lot's of differences between FS and TM and impossible to say which is correct.

How much more precise is anything else? Until the ball or the clubhead become a measuring device itself I'll stick with TM or FS. One used phantom camera and a bunch of jabronies with line drawing software? No way. EVERY SHOT I've ever hit a shot with less than 2* on face and path (ex. 1.2* face angle, 1.0* path) was a "straight" shot. (Straight being relative, not perfectly straight - there's always a foot or two off the line for my straight shots). If you can light up TM or FS you are a tour caliber player. Most people can't. Much easier to question the machine than face reality of inconsistent impact conditions.

TM and FS are tools that can make practice more efficient.

BTW - Voldemort thinks that he can discredit Brian if he takes down TM. Brian doesn't need TM to teach, however, it makes him so much better. Just another tool in his belt.

 

[Frans@France]

It's not a problem for the X2. Trackman, Tuxen, has acknowledged there was a problem with that version TMII.

The "beam" is a microwave emitted from a phased array radar in a V, not a straight line to the target. In any case we're talking about the clubhead 3 metres in front of the unit.

indeed in a V shap which is smaller near the golfer then near the target. So lining up to the left or right in the swing in relation to the V would make it possible for the clubhead to enter the beam in a later time/postition then normal when measuring the vsp.

If the programmer assumed "normal" clubhead entry into the beam than that could explain the incorrect vsp values.

 

[Frans@France]

The frequency of the transmitter is indicated on the label on the device. My X2 is 10.505 Ghz.

I was not aware that that was reported on the X2, it's not on the TM afaik . If the spread is enough between machines than it could indeed work.

 

[Frans@France]

Also, I didn't just throw the 2 units on the ground and start hitting balls. I followed a well thought out protocol for my tests. Could there have been interference? Possibly. But the devices reported similar numbers when used side by side as they did when used standalone.

if the two units pointed to the same target then that in itself could create an eror in the angles. The further away the target the smaller the error. The TPS software has a improved target setting procedure (which includes the distance) over the launch software...

 

[Robbierob99]

if the two units pointed to the same target then that in itself could create an eror in the angles. The further away the target the smaller the error. The TPS software has a improved target setting procedure (which includes the distance) over the launch software...

Again, i'm not 100% sure this is how it works for flightscope, BUT trackman "adjusts" on each and every shot... IT knows exactly where you put the ball & as long as it's reasonably in front of the machine (2-4 steps & a step or so to the left or right) it just does not matter where you put the ball. So this "error in the angles" doesn't exist with 2 side by side Trackman Units (guessing its the same or similar for FS).

You set the target, drop a ball and TMan sets the target-line between the 2. It's that simple, no angle problems.



Another built in security is that if the shot is OUTSIDE the programmed margins of error, Trackman won't show that number. This is a good thing... The numbers are either CORRECT or they just won't show. (other than some DOUBLED spin numbers every once in a while... nothing is perfect on this planet, oh well.)