TruGolf TruTrack vs ProTee V2.0 vs GSA PX5 for accuracy club and ball measurements

[TheGolfer]

Can anyone help comparing the accuracy of these three (TruTrack, ProTee, GSA PX5)?

Looking to pull the trigger any day but its very hard to cut through the marketing BS and compare the real data.

Background - Looking to use the sim as a teaching aid with very good golfers. Need to be able to hit draws, cuts, knock downs, lobs, etc. Ie more of a tool versus a game.

I understand each has limitations when compared to the GSA CX5 5 camera system that is ultra accurate for club and ball measurements but want to quantify that difference and understand what I am giving up or not in accuracy for cost.

Understand that all three calculate club head measurements and ball speed, path, LA but ALL THREE also estimate ball spin and spin axis. Curious to see if anyone is more accurate with ball spin estimates.

Also understand that TruGolf uses E6 software and the other two RedChain. Just looking for inputs on this thread on sensor measurement accuracy and error rather than software or pricing comparisons.

Any help is appreciated.

TruGolf TruTrack:
* http://www.trugolf.com/
* New Technique Prestige model is shipping next week- small portable sim in a box
* Convenient that all components are prepacked and easy to setup but the trade off is portable frame / netting with very small sim screen and components are not tailored or optimized for your specific setting (perhaps also tradeoff on accuracy but can't get any data to compare)
* TruTrack looks like its a sensor matt for club head measurements and sonic triangulation for ball path, speed, LA when it hits the screen.
* Ball spin and spin axis is estimated (same for all three options)
* From the picture it looks like there are not many sensors on the sensor matt (concern) compared with the GSA PX2 96 sensor insert (same one used in GSA PX5) but it may be that the ball track sensors are removed since ball track is done via sonic triangulation?
* For this kind of money it would be a shame to find out that the sensors are similar to DD or P3Pro (not bad as long you understand what you are getting ahead of time but with TruGolf no data is offered just "very accurate and independently tested" so their marketing the high accuracy but not providing the data (concern)
* Need to hit off the same spot on the sensor matt and believe you need a shot to hit the screen to register (curious how lob, flop, and sand shots register then?)

GSA PX5
* http://www.golfsimfactory.com/ElectronicSensors.htm
* Looks like the PX5 is their PX2 96 sensor matt for club head measurements and hCam and vCam for both launch angle, ball path, and speed.
* Spin is estimated
* The camera for ball path, spin, and launch angle are ~ 5 feet from screen so in theory should have more resolution / accuracy versus a similar system that measures right after the ball position?
* I know high speed cameras are very accurate since they don't sample - they measure exactly what the see
* Curious on the accuracy compared to sonic triangulation?
* Martin does publish the 96 sensors for PX2 matt and accuracy of club head measurements
* with the two camera system you can choose to hit anywhere off the sensor matt (ie sand, rough inserts) and both cameras pick up ball measuremetns but you just give up club head measuremetns for swing analysis when you hit those shots if you choose (can still hit them off the sensor matt if you choose)

ProTee V2.0
* http://www.protee-united.com/
* DJ (marketer?) and Martin (inventor / engineer?) went seperate paths and DJ is selling single unit through Protee
* Similar to TruGolf hard to get your hands on real data for accuracy
* As you would expect it looks very similar to GSA products but ...
* Don't know for sure but it looks like the GSA PX2 sensor matt but heard the launch angle camera is like a web cam. Believe this is fairly close to after you hit the shot versus GSA further away?
* This is not fact but I would guess it is a PX2 matt with a web cam
* Believe the ball path / speed sensors are also in the same matt right after you hit it so in theory probably has less resolution / accuracy from a similar system that has these sensors farther away?
* TruGolf says the Trutrack unit in the Technique models is the same unit in the high end fully enclosed systems (so if you are familiar wtih their newport, signature, etc its the same technology sensors)

[TheGolfer]

Just learned that TruGolf TruTrack sensor mat has 32 sensors - sounds similar to DD @ 32 and less than P3Pro @ 32 and protee/GSA at 96. This may be misleading though since you need to just get the sensors needed for club head measurements since TruTrack does need mat sensors for ball path, speed, and spin since it uses sonic triangulation.

[ZMax]

Here's my review of Trugolf's top of the line simulator that I did a while back.
http://forum.ottawagolf.com/showthre...l=1#post396543

The CX5 just showed up on GGS's website so I have no idea if it's available or whether it even works.

The Protee 2.0 circuit board is not the same as the PX2 circuit board. Protee modified it by adding a ball track and extra reset sensors. It also has a microphone for triggering cameras.

As for accuracy. Protee and GGS are close and Trugolf would be third(see review above). GGS PX5 has a slight edge since it has a ball path cam. Protee will soon have a ball path cam so both will be the same at some point. Read both the Protee and GGS threads to find other differences. Trugolf's sonic triangulation works ok for normal shots but not so good for flops or chips. and as you noticed, the club sensor is lacking.

The E6 is available for GGS and will soon be available for Protee.

The $45K price of Trugolf's premium system is due to the encloser, setup, and of course, a hefty markup. With Protee and GGS, you do all the work.

Let me know if I missed any questions.

[bubba22]

I am pretty sure you won't be able to find a true independent test comparing all three systems. My feeling I that they are all comparable in accuracy. What you should respect are these points a) the price b) the support c) the track record of the companies d) the technical progression of the company. I agree with ZMax. For sure I would recommend the Protee although the other systems would also work well. I am not sure about the sonic triangulation. I suspect I is accurat except for flop,chip shots

[syhlif32]

You just can’t assume that less sensors mean less accuracy!
Accuracy also depends on how often the sensors are read.

Also the way the sensors are setup matters. If I understoodMartin right then the PX1 with 43 sensors (and fully with activated club path)has the same accuracy as the PX2 as long as it is setup for use for only righthanded or left handed. While the PX2 is better if used for both right and lefthanded players.
Also cameras and not equal. A HD camera with high speedshutter will have the potential to be more accurate than the low resolution PS3eye cam. I do not know if it is or there even is a need for that accuracy.

Strange story today. I went into Golfsmith in Fort Lauderdale they have 3 golftec simulators setup with club fitting software.

While the club speed of the irons I tested was just a little under what I expected the club face was all over the place. Next I tested some drivers. The club head speed on all of them was 10-15 mph lower than my normal swing speed and again the club face angle was all over the place

We then went into another simulator room. All exactly the same but now the club head was fine and the clubspeed close to my normal speed.
The women whot did the setup only comment was that I must be more comfortable in the second room?

On the first simulator the driver speed was 88-91mph and club face between 9 degrees open and 9 degrees closed. And all the balls were in the left of the field. Regardless of club face!
On the second simulator the driver speed was 101 -107 mph. Apart from one which I hit way open the rest was square or very close to square. Think the second unit was a little optimistic with club head speed but it worked because I bought both a iron set and a driver!

Somebody must have really messed up the first unit I assume in the software? Or maybe the light was not right?. The real problem was that they did not even know. When I left the shop somebody was on the first simulator getting clubs ‘fitted’ to his swing!
I did talk with another one in there who said he would look into it!

So does that mean that the Golftec simulators are not very accurate? No I think it means no simulator is accurate if not setup correct.

[bubba22]

I tend to disagree. I do think that the accuracy is related to the number of sensors. I agree that the number of sensors is not the only factor. Certainly the quality of the sensors, the spacing and setup of the sensors are important as well as the type. I think shadow based sensors are more accurate than reflective technology.

With respect to cameras, it purely depends on what you are measuring. To measure direction for ball tracking then the frame rate is way more important than the resolution. In that situation the detail of the balk is not needed. You simply want to know what he direction is so a simple ball steak will suffice. To measur spin however will require much more resolution as well as a fast frame ate and fast shutter speed.

[TheGolfer]

I agree with bubba22. While the number of sensors may not be everything for club head measurements in IR sensor pads but there is trend line that you can anticipate amount of accuracy that seems to correllate - DD 32, TG TT 32, P3Pro 35, ProTee 96 but some on ball flight not just head, GSA PX2 96. For club head characteristics below is what martin advertises:

96 sensors, 2 * 16 bit counters, Serial I/O, Data bus expansionport

Maximum measurable club speed : 270 mph at +/- 0.5 mph accuracy

Minimum measurable club speed : 1.15 mph +/- 0.0001 mph accuracy

Speed accuracy at 100 mph : +/- 0.065 mph

Club-face angle at impact to ball : +/- 0.0001°

Maximum measurable Club Path : 24° in-to-out 29° out-to-in +/-0.65°

Mat dimensions: H = 7cm - 2 3/4" W = 30 cm - 12" L 61cm - 24"

For IR club head measuremetns the tolerances are pretty damb good.

So when it comes to club head measuremetns my bet is on GSA PX2 matt. Protee says 96 but won't disclose any data on them and subset are geared towad ball measurements also so club head measurements is > 96 sensors. TruGolf today said they will not provide any info on accuracy of their ssytem except it uses 36 IR sensors for the club head. Without any data I need to assume their club head measurements are close to DD with 35 which is crazy on a $15k USD system.

On ball path, spead, and launch. No real data. My undersanding is P3Pro uses a modified PX2 IR sensor to measure club and some path / speed on the ball along with the web cam for launch angle. Comparing this to PX5 then I think PX5 needs to be more accurate with ball speed / path because its measurement for this data point is 5 feet from the screen where ProTee seems like its in the matt in front of where you hit. My understanding is if you move the ball path / speed sensors farther from the tee then the potential better resolution / accuracy you will get since the ball had more time to travel.

So iniitally it seems the GSA PX5 has the potential for being more accurate plus has Martin is almost done with his MX spin module which will measure it for once. DJ says he also is trying to work on his to. With the PX5 it looks like you are getting ball measured in 3dimensions - hcam horizontally, vcam vertically which gives very good ball measuremetns (without spin) and execellent club head measurements.

Now TruGolf. Seems appealing similar in the box for $15k but you get everyting. Box shows up and all you do in 1 hour is setup up. No electricians, nothing hanging on walls, very convenient. But company told me today that they only have 32 IR sensors for the head measurements. They also wont disclose anything regarding the accuracy of their measurements. It does concerm me for an expensive system that a compnay that markets its self as high end but won't publish the accurancy of the sensors to compare against its competitors if they are so accurate. If this continues one is forced to assume that these systems are more games and not anywhere near the accuracy of GSA?

I personnaly like Martin's CX5 5 camera system which should be 99.9% accurate but I have the budget for PX5 and already a challenge to hange cameras and ights from ceilings wtih PX5 let alone now you have 5 of them.

Protee is certainly easier to setup because they have less cameras/sensors than PX5 but you get what you payfor that trade off. For some reason protee is pricing their system higher than the GSA PX5 system.

Trugolf's trutrack I haven't come across anyone that can discuss the accuracy of the sonic triangulation. My gut says its a cheaper solutin to market versus cameras to your average hcp guys who don't care if their club face is off my few degrees and the path is off by another couple degrees? They tried telling me that they have tested their system with all out door launch monitors and they are accurate within 1 /10ht of a percent but when asked to show me that on paper can't get it.

Thank you all for the emails and posts. Please keep them coming. Your insight is incredible. You don't need to have used all three to compare, if you have one of the systems and believe its a dog let me know or if its super accurate dido.
Thanks.

[ZMax]

So does that mean that the Golftec simulators are not very accurate? No I think it means no simulator is accurate if not setup correct.

These simulators were installed and setup by the company that sold them. Most folks that work in these golf places don't have a clue about how they work much less about how to fix them.

Btw, did these simulators have floor sensor mats to measure the club? Cameras? Who makes them? Do you know how they work?

I tend to disagree. I do think that the accuracy is related to the number of sensors. I agree that the number of sensors is not the only factor. Certainly the quality of the sensors, the spacing and setup of the sensors are important as well as the type. I think shadow based sensors are more accurate than reflective technology.

With respect to cameras, it purely depends on what you are measuring. To measure direction for ball tracking then the frame rate is way more important than the resolution. In that situation the detail of the balk is not needed. You simply want to know what he direction is so a simple ball steak will suffice. To measur spin however will require much more resolution as well as a fast frame ate and fast shutter speed.

Couldn't agree more bubba22.

[rdh]

I just posted a comment in the E6 computer build thread that I thought I'd relay here for those people that are hung up on the hardware being accurate to within a half degree:

The software aspect is something else I think people need to take into account when they complain that +/- 1 degree is too much variation in the hardware. The exact same specs fed into two different software packages (GSA or E6) will produce different ball flights depending on the algorythms used by the software developers. Who is to say which one is more accurate...or even if either of them are? People need to be realistic and keep some perspective...all of this is SIMULATED and spot-on accurate depictions of what the ball would do in real life are pipe dreams. The simulators and software can be VERY close, but you can never know for sure what the ball would have done exactly in the real world.

[bubba22]

Couldn't agree any more with you rdh.

[ZMax]

The software aspect is something else I think people need to take into account when they complain that +/- 1 degree is too much variation in the hardware. The exact same specs fed into two different software packages (GSA or E6) will produce different ball flights depending on the algorythms used by the software developers. Who is to say which one is more accurate...or even if either of them are? People need to be realistic and keep some perspective...all of this is SIMULATED and spot-on accurate depictions of what the ball would do in real life are pipe dreams. The simulators and software can be VERY close, but you can never know for sure what the ball would have done exactly in the real world.

I don't have a problem with +/- 1 deg but there are launch programs out there that when given the same club and ball data, a certain amount of sidespin should have been produced, resulting in a particular ball flight. I'm not looking to simulate real life golf, I do plenty of that outside, but I do want my simulator to simulate the ball flight as well as possible with estimated spin. I compare it to launch programs and what I see outside. An understainding of the golf swing is needed obviously.

Myself and bubba22(a single digit handicap) agrees that the E6 appears to be too forgiving. The P3pro was also too forgiving. It's great that GSA and Protee allows the user to make adjustments to spin and other parameters so that we can tweak the ball flight.

[bubba22]

Exactly ZMax. I think if E6 will have such control then it will be better for one to tweek the system to make it slightly more realistic.

[ZMax]

Exactly ZMax. I think if E6 will have such control then it will be better for one to tweek the system to make it slightly more realistic.

Yes, indeed.

Is there an interface program for the E6 or do you just launch it like you normally do for Protee Play? When you post screen shots, if you can do one for Pebble Beach that would be great.

[bubba22]

No I am not sure how the changes will be made. I suspect it will be done through the ProTee interface. I will try to post some screenshots today right after work.

[rdh]

You work bubba??? I thought playing on the simulator and posting on here was your full time focus!

[bubba22]

Work, what is that? Unfortunately we have to pay bills (as well as get toys like simulators). I wish I could just simulate all day.

[TheGolfer]

Spoke with TruGolf and they won't release any accuracy measurements for their TruTrack. Does have 32 sensors versus PX2 96 and protee.

Below is the accuracy from GC2. Looks very good. I spoke to someone today that placed GC2 next to the tee on a TruGolf system and they both produced shots from within < 1%. Surprised to hear that about TruGolf.

gc2.jpg

[bubba22]

Well if that is the case then the Protee and GSA will follow that level of accuracy. Let me ask, how did they measure the shots to be within 1%? Did they have the TrueGolf setup with E6 and just use the GC2 readout or was that with GC2 setup in simulation?

[ZMax]

Split screen simulation? LOL.....

But seriously, I can see LA, ball speed, and ball path being within 1% but I doubt that the ball flight would have been the same.

[bubba22]

That's why I asked the qustion Z. Still working on this screenshot saving.

[ZMax]

Thanks for trying bubba22. You'll find a way to make it work.

[tarmactrr]

Well if that is the case then the Protee and GSA will follow that level of accuracy. Let me ask, how did they measure the shots to be within 1%? Did they have the TrueGolf setup with E6 and just use the GC2 readout or was that with GC2 setup in simulation?

you can use the GC2 outside, so if it was me I would have put it up with a trackman or Flightscope and verified accuracy that way.

[walb0034]

But he's not talking about strictly verifying the accuracy of the GC2, we're talking about comparing the same shot on a GC2 to a protee/px5. I think running 2 sims would be great. Hit off the protee sim, while having GC2 also simulate the shot on a different computer. Then compare the two for the same shot. Any GC2 owners live near a protee owner? Maybe Corey could put his GC2 next to his ProTee, and show the differences between the same shot? Maybe a normal shot, hook, slice, thin, etc....

[TheGolfer]

It was TruGolf newport model setup using E6 software. The newport i am told using the exact same trutrack sensor / sonic technology as the new Technique Prestige (total sim in a box for $15k). Then he placed the GC2 unit next to the tee. Both devices then measured the shots. Now I am always suspect of someone selling product giving advice since there is a natural bias for advise targeted to those units they sell. In this case he seems honest and was not pushing either one over the other - he is satisified with both and believe both are pretty much identical in accuracy but both have a few differences that may suit users in one application versus a different one (ie GC2 portable launch monitor for out door use if you need it, TruGolf uses E6 which is better software than GC2, but accuracy both the same). Now having said that I am surprised with the 32 sensor setup but perhaps there is more to sensors than the quanity like a few of you have mentioned. Also surprised if they are getting the same accuracy why they wouldn't advertise that since that would only help their sales. After thinking about it further the 32 sensors I think are only giving you the club head measurements for the swing analyzer and the sonic triangulation is what really telling you where the ball is (speed, launch angle, ball path) with a combo probably for estimating spin. I can see a case where the swing analyzer may show the club head open/closed not that accurately but the simulator shows a more accurate shot since using the speed, launch angle, and ball path close to the screen for most of the ball characteristics.

I also checked on the club identification for chip shots, lobs, etc that don't hit the screen. Yes the ball needs to hit the screen to register its shot and use the real launch angle. If you hit shots like very short chips, very high short sided sand, lobs, flops it sounds like you may not hit the screen but they still register I am told and are protected from the frame surround. I am told this happens infrequently but when it does then that's when it will default to the loft you give the computer if you want or use the default to figure out launch angle. Now remember also with the new Technique Prestige models shipping this month the tee is only ~ 7.5 / 8.0 ft away rather than standard 12-14 feet on commerical installs so maybe that helps reduce this case? Again this is not from my direct measurements and I am getting from someone selling both products so you need to understand the source.

[TheGolfer]

Excellent. That is exactly what I am talking about. We know the GC2 error tolerances if you trust the advertising which is the best we have. Then find a trusting soul to place the GC2 on the protee, PX5 if handy, and TruGolf newport (available now versus Technique shipping this month but same sensor technology). This is what I just replied that a company did who sells both GC2 and Trugolf and they say they are very close in accuracy. Need to test with driver and hit draws, hooks, fades, cuts (recommend driver since longest distance and max error). Also interested in hitting iron knock downs. Maybe throw in a few lobs, flops, bunker shots. I am testing the TruGolf system in person next week. If anyone knows where I can rent a GC2 unit for the day when I test TruGolf I can also put the GC2 unit side by side? My first thought would be create a matrix for each to identify speed, spin, etc but at the end of the day I think I just care about where the shot landed (total distance forward and left / right from center) then measure how close each one is to each other?

Another way to test the accuracy on these is just by knowing your own carry/role for your clubs. If you know that your average 7iron fade is 167 yards carry + 3 yards roll with several yards right of center then if you hit that same shot on your sim and it produces the same result then its pretty damn good.

[ZMax]

The Golfer,

Sounds like you're trying to talk yourself into getting the Trugolf. The test that the rep did with the GC2 is suspect IMO. For $15K, you can get the Protee 2.0, which comes with 75 RedChain course, plus full E6, plus LA cam(H-cam later). Use the rest of the money to build the enclosure. You will end up with a better, more accurate simulator than Trugolf's Newport.

[bubba22]

The accuracy of these sims seems to be everybodies question. There is no doubt in my mind that when you play with a ProTee, GSA, Trugolf, GC2 etc that you will be able to hit a ball and tell within a few yard whether it is that accurate (unless you are Iron Byron or Bernhard Langer). I am sure that all these systems will be very close (not perfect) in accuracy. One has to accept what they have and hopefully can say that with some confidence that is what I think the shot I just made did. I have always harped that not knowing the launch angle is critical for me. I think having very good club and ball data is enough for the average golfer without knwing the spin. Even knowing the spin aspect of things, remember that spin number from GC2 is being plucked somehow into the RedChain software. So lets say the GC2 measures the spin at 4500 backspin with 500 side spin and plucks that in VS ProTee estimating spin (from club data) at 4800 with 550 sidespin. Will there really be that much difference? Bear in mind the ball launch angle and horizontal angle are measured just as well with 2 cameras from ProTee or GSA (as well as the sonic triangulation) compared to the GC2. The reason to chose one of these sims compard to the GC2 should be based on whether you want a portable system vs fixed, the ability to use on the range, no club selection and financially willing to spend more dough.

[TheGolfer]

I agree ZMax, that the GC2 / TruGolf test the rep did is suspect and notvery scientific.

What I really really want is Martin's CX5 5 camera system (no IR) with ballspin + E6 + 1080P short throw + 9 x 13 screen + Intel I7 4.4ghz overlocked hexcore with dual SLI GTX 590s each with 3gb + mat with fairway / rough / sandinserts + built in enclosure + 24" touch screen + very knowledgeablereseller support for GSA products due to the lack of GSA product support. Getthis for $15k I am sold but now back to reality. Budget is no where near thisand everything will be a tradeoff on accuracy, functionality, and cost.

GSA PX5 dual camera system seems the most accurate and is less expensivethan protee with their putting module and one camera launch angle. PX5 I wouldthink is more accurate not just for the dual camera which tracks the ball in 3dimensions but the ball track sensors are closer to the screen versus near thetee. Problem is seems like everyone I talk with agrees that there is close tozero support from GSA regarding their products. It seems like their productsare more accurate, more options, more complex (ok if you can get support).Can't see spending this kind of money even for a better product but the companywon't support you. Being an engineer its frustrating passing on bettertechnology because of poor customer support. If anyone has had great support from GSA in helping setting up theirmulti camera systems during install I would love to hear from you. As a bonusyou don't need to hit from the IR mat and can hit from rough, sand, and fairwayinserts or anywhere else you choose - just give up club head swing analysis forthat shot if you choose to.

Protee seems like a compromise but it looks like it uses a modified GSA PX2sensor matt with a single web cam for launch angle. The camera might havechanged to a professional high speed camera recently but feedback I got from afew people is that its either a web cam or a cam from a game system likenintendo, playstation, etc. At the end of the day if it works it works but justleaves a perception when users describe the web cam interface. Support isprobably better than GSA and several resellers are supporting it so you can gettheir support. Curious how support is over in US over the internet / email fromNetherlands though. It is easier tosetup since it only has one camera and not a second one on the ceiling plus itonly has two ceiling IR lights not three. Putting is an issue with your head shadow over the IR sensor and puttingthrough the fiber built mat and sensors might cause the ball to bounce and readinaccurately; therefore, the need for their putting module which you need toadd in the cost. I do think protee isover charging significantly for a single one camera system compared to the GSAPX5 dual camera system you can get for less money. Protee has acknowledged they have up to a 2degree path error which for 280 yard drives that’s either 10 yards left or 10yards right maximum. PX5 I am guessingis less since dual camera and ball track is closer to screen but no data onthis. I heard that protee the systemstill needs to know what club you are hitting which I don’t understand whysince they added the launch angle camera. Heard you can play without entering you club but the system is stillassuming a certain club / loft when you hit but not sure why or if this isreally true?

Trugolf with their new technique prestige model with E6 full edition seems intriguingon the surface since it’s a sim in a box and total setup time is maybe 1-2hours for everything since it comes with a portable frame you attach everythingto. Seems like first company to targetour market space with a fully assembled system rather than a collection ofcomponents. Price is slightly more than PX5 or protee WITH REDCHAIN when youtake into consideration all the components and enclosure along with someinstall help which I need. Price is significantlyless when you add the $5k for E6 full edition for GSA or ProTee for all courses/ practice. This makes sense sinceTruGolf makes E6 and is ripping everyone else off by charging high license feesto use their software on another sim besides TruGolf. Don’t need a portable frame so that’s notattractive for my application. E6 andease of setup is selling point. Accuracyshould be much less than GSA PX5 dual camera and guessing maybe tied withprotee single camera system which I am trying to get some factual informationon. Perhaps more accurate since thesonic triangulation takes place near the screen so by the time it gets the launchangle and ball path the ball has traveled quite a bit compared to right afterthe tee – maybe? Neither company haspublished accuracy information. Another negativeis since they have it in portable frame the image is very small ~ 8ft wide x5.5 ft tall but they have the tee ~7.5-8 feet away to make it feel larger. I think the projector is XGA in 4:3 where onthe others I can get my own WXGA in 16:10 with a 12.7 wide x 8h image from a 9foot throw. Like protee you need to puttthrough fiber built material and sensors, but unlike protee you can’t get a separatemodule to avoid this so you are stuck with it. Another negative is it sounds like for shots that don’t hit the screenthe system does not use the sonic triangulation to get the launch angle butthen defaults to the club loft you are using to estimate launch angle (ie flop,lob, high short sided bunker, and possibly short chips). I am told by sales rep shots still registerbut default to club loft for LA but I have not seen this myself. The other thing is they sell the system witha low end dual processor 2.4ghz and a middle of the road within the lower tierNVIDIA cards but they claim it runs E6 full edition with zero delays. Like I mentioned in another posting if itworks then don’t care if its low end components but I doubt it and would hateto spend the money just to throw the computer out after 6 months and buy a newone. I did see a post recently thatsomeone just did that and is going with a high ghz quad with a GTX 580 gpu. This is a legitimate company and they areactively engaged and supporting their products.

GC2 no clue. Based on sponsors ontheir website looks likes its being used by a lot of respectable clubfitters. Looks like launch monitorgetting into sim business. The errortolerance published on their website looks very good. Respect that they publish their errortolerances but I think they need to since they are a launch monitor primarilyused for club fitters. Seems very expensivecompared to others just for the unit / range / and 5 courses then need to addin everything else plus additional course packs. Heard graphics are not as good as redchainand much less than E6. For myapplication I don’t need to use it outside. Trackman I respect. I have usedZelocity a number of times and the numbers are not even close to reality. Seems convenient not to worry about hanginglights and cameras and getting cameras / lights configured during installproperly.

After all that I still really really want my first choice for $15k but thatwill never happen. Second choice I thinkis PX5 but I need to throw that out since no one seems to support it includingthe manufacturer. Still not sure.

[ZMax]

Dude, don't take offense here but you need to do some more reading. You have some misconceptions about some of these sims.

[bubba22]

Wow you are really overthinking things the Golfer. First of all I wouldn't call the Sony cam a simple webcam. Do some research about this cam. 2nd of all I am playing as we speak with a secon overhead cam from the ProTee so some of your facts may not be all there as Z is saying. Finally you need to just make a choice that you will be happy with based on your budget etc. Why don't you just get the GC2. It is well respected and seems to fit what you want.