FlightScope brings accuracy, affordability to launch monitor market

[BigLeftyinAZ]

i disagree with camster
regardless of the method used to measure launch, backspin, side spin, and ball speed..the data is already there.
the software can put whatever wrapper around it to turn it into a marketable package.
i don't think the doppler will be anymore accurate than the vector when you're talking about indoor fitting.
 some say the images that it collects is not good enough, i think it is.  with a good averaging algorithm and accurate sampling rate, it's easy to determine launch and spin accurately.  granted the ss and angle of descent as well as peak is calculated, but who cares.  you just want to get the launch and spin right given a ballspeed, you also want to be able to compare two different heads, etc... 
with the high launch and low spin craze these days, you would want to max out carry.
Accusport just needs to write software that presents the data better and one that's more intuitive.
i can also argue that these doppler systems aren't accurate with measuring spin. 

I think angle of descent is a very important number,something we dont get using the vector.Even though you can get optimal flight and get that number if you choose you require it.

[camster8]

Frank,you say both are just as accurate.Within 2%.What makes the doppler that much better if both calculates within 2%..

The 4 times I've hit on the flightscope,I didnt find the readings were any better then the vector.

Here are a few numbers I had on the two

Flight scope SS and BS ranges were 109-122 BS 164- 181. 80% were in the 115-119 range
Vector's range was 112-118 BS 166-176 80% were in the 113-116 range

I felt the vector numbers were more accurate.I have never reached 122 SS on any machine,let alone 120 mph.118 is  even rare for me.

What readings???

[BigLeftyinAZ]

Frank,you say both are just as accurate.Within 2%.What makes the doppler that much better if both calculates within 2%..

The 4 times I've hit on the flightscope,I didnt find the readings were any better then the vector.

Here are a few numbers I had on the two

Flight scope SS and BS ranges were 109-122 BS 164- 181. 80% were in the 115-119 range
Vector's range was 112-118 BS 166-176 80% were in the 113-116 range

I felt the vector numbers were more accurate.I have never reached 122 SS on any machine,let alone 120 mph.118 is  even rare for me.

What readings???

Those readings.

[jacksonlui]

software version 2.1 calculates the angle of descent

[BigLeftyinAZ]

software version 2.1 calculates the angle of descent

Thats good to know.Havent played with it since I got the new software last week

[camster8]

Those readings.

I'm finding that distances seem to parallel the "on course" results better than with the Vector.  Meaning that my customers are getting the same distances on the course as we are in the Studio...

[rp]

I'm finding that distances seem to parallel the "on course" results better than with the Vector.  Meaning that my customers are getting the same distances on the course as we are in the Studio...

I agree completely with Frank on this. I have done the trial with Flight Scope and I find them very accurate as I do with my Zelocity.

To answer the earlier question about the doppler v. the vector, the vector is taking calculation based on pictures taken 6" after impact. The doppler is tracking the flight of the ball for much longer. In my setup The ball has around 23' of flight time that can be tracked. That is basing calculations on 46 times the information that the vector is using. To me, that is a huge advantage.

RP

[jacksonlui]

how does the doppler measure accurate spin numbers?
i've been told it is from the dimples but what if you use a ball with different type of dimples?
if let's say a wedge shot spins at 8000rpm, the doppler isn't sampling fast enough to give accurate numbers.

[rp]

how does the doppler measure accurate spin numbers?
i've been told it is from the dimples but what if you use a ball with different type of dimples?
if let's say a wedge shot spins at 8000rpm, the doppler isn't sampling fast enough to give accurate numbers.

I honestly do not know how it measures the spin. I have been told that the launch, spin and ball speed numbers on all clubs are accurate, however wedge calculations are not good on any of them except trackman. The reason for that, I have no clue. I know Zelocity is working on a software update to rectify this. Currently when doing a wedge fitting I have to use the Optimal flight software to get accurate distances when plugging in the launch parameters from the Zelocity.

The Vector, from what I have been told, calculates based on the dimples, but a lofted club gets missed by the camera and just does nothing for you.

RP

[camster8]

how does the doppler measure accurate spin numbers?

Ball Seam...  Even a seamless ball has a seam...

i've been told it is from the dimples but what if you use a ball with different type of dimples?

You were misinformed about the dimples.

if let's say a wedge shot spins at 8000rpm, the doppler isn't sampling fast enough to give accurate numbers.

Flightscope samples more than Trackman, because FlightScope has an additional channel (Or at least it did almost a year a ago when I demo'ed both).  The actual Sample Rate (the frequency of the RADAR) may be the same or very close.  Trackman has 3 radar channels (last I knew), FlightScope has 4 and I know samples at roughly 20K cycles/second total.  Plenty enough to get accurate wedge spin numbers.  Good golf balls are essential in Doppler Radar sampling. Severely damaged or scarred golf balls will not produce accurate data...

[jacksonlui]

20K cycles/sec? that's not bad, that's roughly 120 samples/revolution for a ball that spins 10K rpm.
so if the spin is 15K rpm then the data drops to 80 samples/rev,
if the spin is 20K rpm then the data drops to 60 samples/rev.

I'm assuming they take an average to get the measurement.  with so many variances/conditions, I would think they need to sample much faster.  this would explain why they have a hard time with measuring wedges.  plus the wedge's launch is much higher, it might make it more difficult for the doppler to track, it would also depend on the sensitivity of their receiver.

in any case, I have zero issues measuring wedges with the vector but spin isn't that important to me with the short irons, it's more important in the woods so this limitation may be not be critical.

[OptimalFlight]

20K cycles/sec? that's not bad, that's roughly 120 samples/revolution for a ball that spins 10K rpm.
so if the spin is 15K rpm then the data drops to 80 samples/rev,
if the spin is 20K rpm then the data drops to 60 samples/rev.

I'm assuming they take an average to get the measurement.  with so many variances/conditions, I would think they need to sample much faster.  this would explain why they have a hard time with measuring wedges.  plus the wedge's launch is much higher, it might make it more difficult for the doppler to track, it would also depend on the sensitivity of their receiver.

in any case, I have zero issues measuring wedges with the vector but spin isn't that important to me with the short irons, it's more important in the woods so this limitation may be not be critical.

For irons, the impact of 300-500 rpm isn't as critical because it is coupled with sub 120 mph ball speeds.  The ball speed, launch angle and side angle, and ball choice ends up being the key factors for consideration.  For example, a HX Tour can spin 3000 more rpm than a range ball.  This is a good topic I'll be revisiting in a new thread later in 2008.

Regards,
Todd

[camster8]

20K cycles/sec? that's not bad, that's roughly 120 samples/revolution for a ball that spins 10K rpm.
so if the spin is 15K rpm then the data drops to 80 samples/rev,
if the spin is 20K rpm then the data drops to 60 samples/rev.

I'm assuming they take an average to get the measurement.  with so many variances/conditions, I would think they need to sample much faster.  this would explain why they have a hard time with measuring wedges.  plus the wedge's launch is much higher, it might make it more difficult for the doppler to track, it would also depend on the sensitivity of their receiver.

in any case, I have zero issues measuring wedges with the vector but spin isn't that important to me with the short irons, it's more important in the woods so this limitation may be not be critical.

If both Trackman and Flightscope do not see the need to increase sampling rates, than it is probably insignificant.  If you're content taking a spin measurement within a 7" window on the Vector I see no need for Flightscope or Trackman to reinvent the wheel...

[jacksonlui]

you can't really compare what the vector does to the doppler method.
with the radar, you need more sampling so you can average to gain better accuracy, the more the better, oversampling is always preferred for most things.  however with vector, all you really need is two clear pictures, from that you use the best possible mean to determine the center of the two circles so you can interpolate the line around the ball.  In my opnion, this is more accurate than averaging.  granted, you won't know what will happen after that 7inch window, but who cares, you just care about fitting.  the others are good at tracking, great for TV and great for looking at angle of descent, and how the ball flights.  there's a lot of IP in the new balls, the way the dimples are aligned, etc...  Vector can't possibly simulate these as accurately as being measured in real time.  those are some of the differences, but depending on your application, you would choose one over the other.

[jacksonlui]

are you guys still using the Kudu?

where can I download the latest software.  I bought a used one and now I'm going to compare it to a Vector Pro.
do i really need the metallic tape to get spin numbers on the Kudu?

please let me know
thanks
Jack

[Schlappit]

I have both a Trackman and a Flightscope....They are both great machines.

The Trackman I love for sure, but I don't love forking out $36,000 for a machine that doesn't do much more than a $6,000 machine.

That alone makes up for any difference that there may be  between the two for me ha ha. BTW I haven't notice any difference between the two besides the bells and whistles that the Trackman brings to the table. Having said that the Flightscope does everything needed for a person to get the correct golf club.

[jacksonlui]

just as a follow up.  the guys from Flightscope are a bunch of cool folks to work with.
Flightscope rocks.  can't wait for constant improvement in the software, i think that's the best way to attract more customers.
user interface and speed of the interface is so important towards the overall experience

[camster8]

just as a follow up.  the guys from Flightscope are a bunch of cool folks to work with.
Flightscope rocks.  can't wait for constant improvement in the software, i think that's the best way to attract more customers.
user interface and speed of the interface is so important towards the overall experience

I love mine!  Yes, the folks at FS are very good...  Best LM investment I've ever made...

[BigLeftyinAZ]

 I haven't found flightscope to be better then the vector. Has anyone compared both units side by side?Do you find a difference?

[camster8]

I haven't found flightscope to be better then the vector. Has anyone compared both units side by side?Do you find a difference?

And you know this because you bought a Flightscope?

[BigLeftyinAZ]

And you know this because you bought a Flightscope?

Why would I piss away good money?

No, cause I know a guy with one.I set my vector up against his flightscope.You already knew this info.

[camster8]

Why would I piss away good money?

No, cause I know a guy with one.I set my vector up against his flightscope.You already knew this info.

Then why did you ask the question about comparison, if you already did it?

[BigLeftyinAZ]

Then why did you ask the question about comparison, if you already did it?

I know you are smarter then that..

Looking for more info.the more info ,the better the knowledge. You have both,why don't you give your reviews on both.What do you like over one then the other.

Do you find both give same results or drastically different?

[camster8]

I know you are smarter then that..

I wasn't the one asking the stupid question now, was I? It sounded like you already had you answer/mind made up?  Anyway Tonto, read on...

Looking for more info.the more info ,the better the knowledge. You have both,why don't you give your reviews on both.What do you like over one then the other.

Software, shot screens, hardware, Angle of descent, Distance Accuracy are only a few of the things that make the FS superior over the Vector.  But then again you're spending almost $9k for the FS vs. $3k for the Vector.  When I compared the two side by side, I found the spin rates of the 2 remarkably close to one another (at 2,700 RPM's of BS, they were both w/i 150 RPM's of each other).  As the RPM's went up, the margin of error also increased exponentially.  I would say the Vector was not as reliable as the FS, measuring the higher RPM's.  The LA's seemed to be within a degree of each.  The one glaring difference I did notice was distance.  Most all of my customers claimed that the distance they were getting on the course were very close to the distances achieved on the FS.  Distances on the Vector were quite inconsistent...

Do you find both give same results or drastically different?

I still think the Vector is a good launch monitor tool in the price range it sells for.  It does not compare to the FS in many areas, and that would be expected, given the price differential.  The biggest gap in price range is between the Trackman and FS and that bridge has to big of a gap price-wise for what the units yield.  In my opinion, the data extrapolated by both the FS and Trackman is very similar and the Trackman is certainly not worth the $18,000 price differential, in my opinion...  In the end, a LM is really only as good as the person using it and interpreting the data correctly...

[BigLeftyinAZ]

I wasn't the one asking the stupid question now, was I? It sounded like you already had you answer/mind made up?  Anyway Tonto, read on...

Where did you read that? I just said  I havent found the FS to be any better then the vector.Just cause that's what I found,doesn't mean others feel the same.

Stop reading between the lines.. You just love to create havoc