Rate all golf sims

[Golfmaxxx]

If you can , rate all the different sims you have tried or owned.

Realism, graphics, experience, problems, price and support

[ZMax]

Here's a good start. Check out thegolfers posts.http://forum.OttawaGolf.com/showthre...hich-Simulator

[bubba22]

Yep. Good thread to start your research!

[Darnold]

I plan to look into the $400 dollar units because it gives club data. I've consistently found that ball tracking data doesn't accurately reflect my true distances and characteristics due to my high spin and high launch tendencies. Club tracking data has allowed me to more accurately address needed changes in equipment and technique that ball tracking data tended to leave unexplained. I wasted a good 8 years chasing red herrings in technique due to ball tracking data, but at least it lead me to learn some things in research and other testing that has since lead to me finally enjoying my golf.

[ZMax]

Darnold, http://forum.ottawagolf.com/showthre...a-vs-Ball-Data

[CPA]

Darnold. What ball data launch monitors have you tried that lead to wrong numbers?

[Darnold]

Darnold. What ball data launch monitors have you tried that lead to wrong numbers?

Three come to mind, two of them are/were popular at GolfSmith; zelocity(??)and now clearview(??). The other one is a major one as well. I'll get the names in couple of hours and post them since I'm doing this from my phone right now. For me the camera based units will typically miss on both direction and their derived swing speed. Too often they would show up straight, push or baby draw and I would go right out to the range and get big slices, they also typically read ball speeds that are so low that my distances are 20 - 30 yards is off. Yesterday I was hitting in one that would often misread my launch angle terribly; as in the ball would hit the screen between 6-8 feet high and it would hiccup/hesitate and then spit out some ridiculous nonsense that the ball only flew 2-3 feet off of the ground with a .01 - 1.0 degree launch angle, lol. I'll post more of my experiences with the nameswhen I get home.

[ZMax]

Zelocity sucks!

The Naperville and Downers Grove Golfsmiths have been using the Foresight GC2s for nearly a year now. The GC2s at both stores do get kicked around enough where they end up not looking directly at the target line, which would throw off ball direction measurements.

[CPA]

Darnold.
Sounds like you used Sims that reported spin but were actually getting spin numbers from lookup tables. Try the GC2 pointed in the right direction and tell is if that gets your shot shape and distance correct.

[CPA]

Zelocity more than sucks Z it is out of business. All those lies they told.

[Darnold]

Had a good post but my son (4yrs old) just came in and climbed on the desk, hitting the mouse before I could post and I lost the post. LOL!

I wanted to say thanks for the posts guys. Along with the Zelocity I also hated the Vector system that Golfsmith used before the GC2. Interestingly, I just found a review between the TruGolf and GC2 sims. Every parameter that both systems read is quite a bit different, and for me, it clarifies why I want club data instead of ball data. If you look quickly after the first swing, the TG shows 111.5mph of cs, 165.5mph of bs, 4636rpm's of back spin, 15deg launch angle, and 270yrds carry, 276yrds total distance. The CG2 is VERY different with 157.5 of bs, 2396rpm's of back spin, 13.5 la, 279 yrds carry, 10yrds roll BUT 303yrds total distance (HUH???). The reviewer's were mainly concerned with the carry distance parameters so they rated the two systems as being close to one another.
One link is the review and the other is more info about the TruGolf product line which I am pretty sure you guys know a lot about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-vdtRnjqyY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PPskkNLJz4

ZMAX- It sounds like we live near each other as the Naperville Golfsmith has been my store for a number of years, we may have run into each other, lol, we should hook up for a beer or something. I also think you are on to something about the GC2's being moved around a lot since I've seen it happen with my own eyes a number of times. I've even had to move it around when it wouldn't read because it was out of range with the ball from previous use. What is also probably hurting the GC2 performance is that the Naperville store doesn't have any set targets to aim at, so how could they line the unit up, let alone keep it lined up? LOL.

CPA- I wouldn't be surprised. The PGA Superstore sim is the aG3Trak system and I'm not a fan of it either. I have had a number of shots freeze and then just go into this sort of slow motion flight that just goes on, and on, and on, spitting out super duper distances, lol! These are the sims that I was referring to that also misread my launch angle terribly when the ball hits the screen between 6-8 feet high but the sim ridiculously says/shows that the ball only flew 2-3 feet off of the ground with a .01 - 1.0 degree launch angle, lol. Maybe this sim uses the spin tables you spoke of, or they need calibrating?

I think one of the problems with these camera based systems is that they are computing smash factor from very limited data, something that really affects club data algorithms. For instance, if you take the figures in the review from the first swing you could pretty much have the difference come down to smash factor readings. If you take the TG club speed value as accurate then you could say that the TG may be reading a smash factor of 1.48 while the GC2 is only reading a smash factor of 1.395. I'm not saying that this is what is happening, in fact I doubt seriously that this is what's happening, what I'm trying to highlight is the fact that without actual club head data you don't know why you are seeing the distance they are telling you. Sure backspin plays an important role in our distance but if you know that you have "x" amount of club head speed then you have a better foundation for figuring out how to maximize your distances based upon FlightScope and Trackman tables.


It's simply easier to hone in on probable issues with smash factor, ball speed and spin rate using the FS/TM system charts than it is to get lulled into accepting the camera based system numbers that don't make sense and leave you clueless on what to change for improvement. In essence, my experience has been that the camera based ball data systems typically left/leave me with "it's something I'm doing wrong in my swing" instead of pointing me to other possible issues that existed/could exist with my equipment which could more easily be addressed. One example was when I simply couldn't figure out how my swing speed on club data systems kept saying one thing but my ball speed/distances on the ball data systems kept saying something entirely different (as in way lower). After a lot of research I realized that high swing speed players often spin the ball more, and as such they need lower lofts to decrease the spin, which also helps to increase their ball speed. Even figuring this out was a pain because there was erroneous data out there that said the opposite, ie. that it's low swing speed players that have backspin rates and that high swing speed players have low backspin rates. LOL!! I told this to one of the guys at a big box store and he didn't know the data and simply didn't believe me so he challenged me to prove it. We took a 9deg R11 off of the rack and opened the face all the way so that the loft was decreased by 1.5 deg and I hit it after hitting my own driver first so that we could compare the numbers. After a few swings to adjust to the different shaft and face angle of the R11s the GC2 consistently showed an increase in distance of 20-30 yards for me while bring my typical 120-150ft high apex down to a more tour like 100ft high. All the guy did in response was put his head down and say "huh, you were right".

Now just think about the review between the TG club data system and the GC2 ball data system for a minute. The GC2 read only HALF of the back spin of the TruGolf system. That's a problem in my book. Why? Because the GC2 WORKS off of SPIN numbers. The TG is working off of club data that is showing swing path and club speed, BUT it also has a second set of infrared sensors that are reading ball speed. That gives the TG system a better chance at having these numbers being more accurate than the GC2 has from trying to derive all of those numbers based upon a limited amount of SPIN data. If that limited spin data isn't accurate or the algorithms don't compute for weird combinations of spin that we may produce with our particular swings and equipment, then all we may really have is a glorified arcade game. I'm NOT saying that the GC2 or other camera based systems aren't or can't be accurate, I'm simply saying that they work off of a principle that may not be as accurate for certain types of swing patterns (such as my high spin/high speed swing pattern) is all.


Measuring club head data, in my opinion and experience is what has allowed me to straighten out my ball flight, increase my distance, and have more fun playing golf. The camera based systems only spun/spin me around in circles. I think they (camera based systems) work for some better than for others is my thought. What's really bad is that all of the big box stores that I've gone to still "fit" people based upon the swing and ball speed parameters that their systems give, and most of those systems are ball data based, instead of the more accurately based scientific principle of how much the person loads the shaft. It's a good thing that I was able to be fit on a True Temper shaft fit system that actually measure your shaft load. Unfortunately, how many people have gotten and continue to get poor fits because the sim says that they only have "y" amount of swing/ball speed and the staff either doesn't know or is too ego driven to really look at how they load the shaft to determine what they really need?

One last thought about why I like club data units. In the review the GC2 said that the golfer had 2600'ish rpm's of back spin but the TG said he had 4600'ish; I'm realizing more and more how much I need to lower my spin rates because the GC2 typically says that my back spin rates are around 3300'ish and even worst, the 3Trak says that they are typically in the 4000's!!! All I know is that I can't trust the flight that either of the two current camera based ball data systems that I hit on say because of problems that I have had when I go out and hit real balls. That's why more and more I bring the swing in that I know gives me the ball flight I want and I ignore the data that ball data sims give. So for now I'll just keep with my club data. LOL!

[ZMax]

Excellent observations Darnold. There is no perfect system. The ideal system would measure everything for both club and ball accurately. It does not exist yet. Did you get a chance to read the link I posted above on club vs ball data?

I have both the Protee and GC2. I can get both to work simultaneously(side by side windows). See my Protee/GC2 compare thread.


We should definitely get together sometime.

[bubba22]

Here is that link Z posted:

http://forum.ottawagolf.com/showthre...a-vs-Ball-Data

[Darnold]

Thanks Z and Bubba. I looked briefly at it but I plan to review it more in depth tomorrow evening. Yep Z, let's set something up, it would be fun.

[ZMax]

Maybe meet at Golfsmith to try the latest clubs then grab a beer or two?

[CPA]

Darnold, it appears you of the understanding gc2 only measures spin. It measures ball speed ball launch angle and azimuth as well. Everything needed to calculate ball flight. Don't know why FS added club speed as this is the only "lookup table" number. The HMT add-on corrects this of course and club data is directly measured.

What a sensor measures vs calculates is the key and Accuracy is the next test. FS are interesting as they publish accuracy tolerances and even stand by them - even the reported differences in HMT data and Trackman (when TM wrote the new book).

One thing for sure is this is emerging science and it is good to see all the development first hand.

Everyone here knows I have GC2 and waiting on the targetline fix from Swingbyte to try and get cheap accurate club data. The advantage will be that it is 3d swing data not just impact data and update has data, 3d graphic and video side by side. If it is accurate I will be in love. (All I need to do is buy swing guru to add on to swingbyte and I can let the machines make me a pro golfer!)

[HRS]

Why do we assume only one sim has inaccurate data? Darnold points out the GC2 spin is half that of the TruGolf. Why do we assume the TruGolf - whose marketing material says "Ball spin is then derived from advanced ball-flight algorithms" - is the correct one? The GC2 measures spin, does not calculate it. We can argue how effective club measuring versus ball measuring is in terms of helping us figure out what we are doing wrong but in the end the ball does what the ball does and that's what we see on the course.

[CPA]

And while you two boys are at Golfsmith trying out new Taylor made R1 drivers can I suggest you use a GC2 to see the difference in spin numbers between R1 and R1 with tour shaft. Darnold I estimate your spin will drop to 2400 with the tour shaft.

Z about time you got the R1?

[ZMax]

HRS, I don't think Darnold was saying that at all. The Trugolf is the least accurate sim in this price range.

CPA, I will definitely try the R1. I just ordered an Excaliber shaft per bubba22's recommendation to try to maximize my spin and control. I'm currently getting spin around 2000rpm using the stock RBZ shaft but looking to increase it to 2600 or so to keep the ball in the air a little longer.

[HRS]

"Now just think about the review between the TG club data system and the GC2 ball data system for a minute. The GC2 read only HALF of the back spin of the TruGolf system. That's a problem in my book. Why? Because the GC2 WORKS off of SPIN numbers." I am very often wrong but I interpreted this to mean he felt the GC2 was less accurate because its numbers did not match the other system. No offense meant. But I think all of us agree the only thing that really matters in the end is what the club is doing in the milliseconds before and after the ball. Get that right and you'll have figured out this terrible, terrible wonderful game.

[ZMax]

Ok, I see what happened. Darnold edited his original post 15 minutes after my initial response with more detail. Using the Trugolf's estimated spin numbers was a poor choice. Using the Trugolf for any kind of comparison is a poor choice.

The GC2's ball data is certainly more realistic than Trugolf's numbers. The GC2 will show strange numbers every now and then but for the most part, it's a very accurate device. I agree that what the club is doing just before impact is what really matters.

[CPA]

And my view is to get that impact right consistently you need to see your swing. Not just numbers at impact.

This means video/swingbite and knowledge/a coach.

The question of ball or club data is too limited now. 3 choices- Ball, club and swing data.

[CPA]

Edit; And swing data includes club and weight transfer data....

[HRS]

Yeah, I am learning that the do-it-yourself golf swing can only go so far without another set of eyes on you. The sim can't tell you that you're cupping your wrist and overswinging and falling backwards and reverse-pivoting and hitting the ball a millimeter from the top. But it does display the 30 yard hook nicely so at least you know you are terrible.

[wbealsd]

I know I've deviated a bit from what I worked on with my teaching pro last year, but (so far) I think that's actually been a good thing. It's probably more of an "age thing", as I just can't keep my back positioned where I would like to for an entire round. I'm swinging more upright now, but with better consistency for more swings and a longer time. Granted, we're just now getting snow off the ground, so my "outdoor feedback" is limited, but so far, so good

If nothing else, having my GC2 to work with indoors has increased my endurance, helped me feel more comfortable with my swing, get to know my distances better and make a couple of changes I might not have made without the practice I've been able to make over the winter.

Maybe even more important, it's helped me get through the most vicious "Spring" weather we've had that I can remember without losing my mind - lol

[Darnold]

Maybe meet at Golfsmith to try the latest clubs then grab a beer or two?

Yes. Maybe this Thursday or sometime next week?

[Darnold]

I completely agree with you CPA that for the sensor it's about what it "measures". The difference is that the GC2, and other camera based ball data sims derive most of their data from calculating the distortion and type of spin that they measured with only 2-3 revolutions of the ball. In that sense they are extroplating data based upon a rather small sample population of data. It appears that they have to utilize quite a few algorithims, which may include some tables, in order to arrive at the data that they give. At the Naperville Golfsmith my typical highs for ball speed on the GC2 range between 150 - 156 which give me carry distances ranging between 260's - 280's (spin range of 2600-3200rpm's). Interestingly, Flightscope's online optimizer program shows a carry of only 258 (153mph ball speed) at 2800 rpm's. In order to get to 271 yrds of carry on Flightscope with what GC2 says are my spin parameters, I needed to have 160 mph of ball speed which is an average of 7mph more than what I do on my good days with the GC2.

We saw in the video comparison that the ball speeds were noticeably different, and the difference was actually about 8 mph which is very similar to what I just found for me. This difference will of course affect actual carry distances but somehow the GC2 is able to be fairly close, if not dead on, with the total carry distance. This seems to suggest that there is some fuzzy math going on with the GC2 that allows it to get close on the carry distance even if it's not fully able to read/extroplate some of the parameters (such as ball speed). That is why club speed is so vital in my opinion. Once you have club speed you know what you are capable of doing if optimized and you can go about the task of increasing your impact efficiency (smash factor) via shaft, spin, trajectory, club face impact point, loft, etc. For me, what I found was that my sometimes crazy spin rates would show up as erroneous data that lead me down a path of trying to "fix a swing" that actually wasn't all that bad to begin with. Once I decided to start making equipment changes based upon theoretical inferences, based in large part upon club data that I was able to gather that didn't match the ball data points, my ball data points improved.

My ball data still doesn't match what I see on the course and range, and it would still lead me towards equipment that I now have enough data and experience to know doesn't work for me, but it CAN be useful for conducting simple comparative analysis (t-Tests) on shafts and trajectories, even if they aren't as accurate as I would like. I simply can't use them for swing speed, smash factor, and flight path data, but that just me since I really can load that shaft it typically brings into play a lot of anomolies that don't fit the "general rules" (such as loosing shots high and to the right actually for me tends to be a sign that the shaft is actually too week instead of too strong). Btw, my research on the generality of what loosing a shot to the right means seems to actually point to if you loose the shot LOW and to the right the shaft may be too strong for you, not just loosing it to the right. LOL!

Darnold, it appears you of the understanding gc2 only measures spin. It measures ball speed ball launch angle and azimuth as well. Everything needed to calculate ball flight. Don't know why FS added club speed as this is the only "lookup table" number. The HMT add-on corrects this of course and club data is directly measured.

What a sensor measures vs calculates is the key and Accuracy is the next test. FS are interesting as they publish accuracy tolerances and even stand by them - even the reported differences in HMT data and Trackman (when TM wrote the new book).

One thing for sure is this is emerging science and it is good to see all the development first hand.

Everyone here knows I have GC2 and waiting on the targetline fix from Swingbyte to try and get cheap accurate club data. The advantage will be that it is 3d swing data not just impact data and update has data, 3d graphic and video side by side. If it is accurate I will be in love. (All I need to do is buy swing guru to add on to swingbyte and I can let the machines make me a pro golfer!)

[Darnold]

HRS- Good point, but I wouldn't say that TruGolf is inaccurate anymore than I would say that GC2 is (notice I've only been pointing out how GC2 works and how those principles have caused problems for me because of my crazy swing/spin characteristics, lol). So I'm not saying for one moment that ALL of TruGolf's data is accurate since it only measures actual club speed, club path, and ball speed. I'm simply saying that it's ability to measure those three parameters allowed me to close in on some things that I struggled to do with ball data sims.

By having both club speed and ball speed you get a more accurate smash factor since the equation is composed of those two parameters. That data has been pretty powerful for me to hone in on proper shafts and lofts which in turn increased my accuracy and distance noticeably. If I understand the physics of camera based systems like the GC2, they are measuring ball speed based upon initial velocity change over a very small distance versus what may be more of a "trap speed" measurement as the ball passes the infrared sensor on the TruGolf; fair enough.

Where the GC2 shines in my opinion is that it's measurement of ball movement allows for it to derive changes in ball axis and spin so that it can give launch angle, spin, and rotation, thereby giving ball data parameters that are "measured" versus the inferred ball data parameters beyond the ball speed pramater that the TruGolf "measures". Therefore, I wouldn't say that the GC2 is measuring ball data more accuretly, but instead that the GC2 is actually measuring certain ball data parameters that the TruGolf isn't and is thus able to give what could be more accurate data on those parameters. However, this is with the caveat that the GC2 and other camera based systems are still doing this based upon a very small sample size which then requires them to do some extrapolation in order to generalize that data for the entire flight.

Why do we assume only one sim has inaccurate data? Darnold points out the GC2 spin is half that of the TruGolf. Why do we assume the TruGolf - whose marketing material says "Ball spin is then derived from advanced ball-flight algorithms" - is the correct one? The GC2 measures spin, does not calculate it. We can argue how effective club measuring versus ball measuring is in terms of helping us figure out what we are doing wrong but in the end the ball does what the ball does and that's what we see on the course.

[Darnold]

Zmax, I'll check out your pm and respond later tonight, have to run and do something at work real quick. Thanks.

[bubba22]

Darnold you seem to like club data. Your points are well taken and form a great debate. Perhaps the debate is more appropriate in the club vs ball data thread linked above. Just to clarify, the Trugolf uses sonar to measure ball speed, launch angle and azimuth based on time and position to hit the screen. Correct me if I am wrong folks. ProTee uses sensors for bill speed.

Getting back o th original question, Darnold how do you rate the sims you have tried?