+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 185
-
08-24-2013 07:57 AM #1
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Location
- White plains
- Posts
- 5
Trackman vs foresight gc2 with hmt
I apologize if this question has been asked too many times already, but I wasn't able to find any recent answers. I am trying to decide between trackman and gc2 with hmt. The primary use will be indoors and I am really looking for something to use for practice/swing improvement rather than simulation. I want both ball flight and club data. My room will be about 19' from wall to screen, so will have 11' of ball flight. I know this meets trackman minimum requirements but it isn't by much so I am a little worried about accuracy of data. On the other side, it doesn't look like previous reviews of the hmt were all that favorable. Has this been improved upon at all? Any thoughts you guys have are very welcomed. Thanks a lot!
-
08-24-2013 09:32 AM #2
Both systems are very good in accuracy, so you can't go wrong. Outdoors I would favor the Trackman as it tracks the ball longer. Indoors is a debate. My advice is to list and look at the pros, cons of each system including the price and make a decision based on that!
-
08-24-2013 10:38 AM #3
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- burlington
- Posts
- 73
I have 18' of room in my garage and Trackman support said I could still make this work. I asked what I would be giving up in terms of accuracy and he specified ball spin, especially if you have a fast swing speed.
-
08-24-2013 02:50 PM #4
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Location
- White plains
- Posts
- 5
Thanks for the responses. If trackman didn't pick up the spin would it underrepresented the true curvature of the shot or am I completely off on that?
-
08-24-2013 03:02 PM #5
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Chicago
- Posts
- 3,687
Yes. You're correct. Indoors, I would choose GC2 over TM.
-
08-24-2013 05:32 PM #6
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Location
- White plains
- Posts
- 5
Anyone have thoughts on hmt vs trackman for club data? Thanks.
-
08-24-2013 07:07 PM #7
-
08-25-2013 10:51 AM #8
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- savoie
- Posts
- 245
Main issue with the CG2 and the HMT is that those are two independent machines without any option to calibrate them in relation to each other. As a consequence you can\will get data that is wrong. There is a thread on this forum about this.
On some other fora I also saw some data where the presented data was impossible. The unit would present the azimuth of the ball being outside the angle between face and path.
In the above screenshot only for the last shot(!!) the azimuth of the ball is (just) within the face and path angle!
With the current data I have seen from the HMT unit I would not buy it.
Indoor the TM will give you calculated spin-axis data (side spin) I use my TM mostly indoor and check the data once in a while outdoor. Till now I have no indication that the indoor data is wrong or inconsistant.
11 feet is enough to get you good data pickup rates. It wil limit the capability of measuring the spin (in relation to the ball speed) The limit iss between spin slower then +/-800rpm for balls moving at 80mph and spin lower then +/-2100rpm for balls @ 175mph
-
08-28-2013 10:15 PM #9
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Location
- Auckland
- Posts
- 174
Good info from everyone. My advice is to DEMO both units side by side in the actual intended space. See what the numbers are and try and decide which one you believe is closest to what you do. Borrow 2 ipads and see if the ball flights are different. If they aren't too different, accuracy probably doesn't matter. You are spending so much money on them you don't want to regret the decision. If you can't get a demo, stay clear of that product. The other factor is ongoing charges for the software updates etc. I'm told some companies are charging up to 2K a year. I went for the GC2/HMT because of room size, but I'm such a nutter that I may get a trackman as well, in which case I would be in a very good position to compare.
Trouble with forum advice is that there is (understandable) user bias in favour of the unit folks own. They have invested so much in the device, many are reluctant to admit they made a suboptimal decision. Good luck!
-
08-29-2013 02:20 PM #10
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Location
- Auckland
- Posts
- 174
What clubhead data does trackman provide? I know the clubhead data is derived, but is it just face and path or does it also give AoA, lie and loft?
-
08-29-2013 04:23 PM #11
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- savoie
- Posts
- 245
•Club Speed
•Attack Angle
•Club Path
•Vertical Plane
•Horizontal Plane
•Dynamic Loft
•Face Angle
No Lie.
-
08-29-2013 04:54 PM #12
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Location
- TX
- Posts
- 30
From what I understand the face angle data may be derived or at least taken with a grain of salt because radar Doppler devices cannot "see" what is happening at impact since they are situated behind the user.
-
08-29-2013 06:32 PM #13
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- Melbourne, Land of Oz.
- Posts
- 1,535
Which brings us full circle. Some TM numbers being derived using new ball flight laws. How did TM/others actually work out those laws? High speed cams?
Anyone?
-
08-29-2013 06:32 PM #14
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- savoie
- Posts
- 245
-
08-29-2013 06:38 PM #15
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- savoie
- Posts
- 245
-
08-29-2013 06:47 PM #16
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Chicago
- Posts
- 3,687
What's missing is gear effect from toe/heal impacts. Not critical when working on your swing but it does add to the simulation when playing a round of golf. Which is why I favor the GC2 for indoor use.
-
08-29-2013 06:55 PM #17
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- savoie
- Posts
- 245
Do you know what a cam can see ? Nothing
You need as much math to get the data from a image as you need to get data from a radar "image" and maybe even more...
Biggest difference between the two : resolution!
Finding the dot on an image, then trying to find it's centre and then finding the same dot in the next image locating again his centre and then using those two centres to do some calculations is what the cam people need to do. The faster the cam the lower the resolution (and the more light is needed). Suddenly your dot is not round anymore in your image and you need to "assume" how round it really was so you can start to assume where it's centre is, also suddenly you can not really see the fine details because there was not enough light....
This is such a real size screenshot taken at 24,000 fps. The result is only 320x240
Still think this looks great?
This is how the dots look like in closeup. Now try to image that you have to find the centres and make calculations based on this quality.
And yes you for the price of the used camera here can buy a CG2 with HMT and still have money to buy a TM and FS
-
08-29-2013 06:57 PM #18
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- savoie
- Posts
- 245
-
08-29-2013 07:05 PM #19
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Chicago
- Posts
- 3,687
-
08-29-2013 07:19 PM #20
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- Melbourne, Land of Oz.
- Posts
- 1,535
Frans can you post a link of the best up to date article on NBFL with radar and cam evidence and off centre effects?
-
08-29-2013 07:29 PM #21
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- Melbourne, Land of Oz.
- Posts
- 1,535
BTW Frans was that indoor or outdoor accuracy numbers?
-
08-29-2013 10:23 PM #22
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Location
- Auckland
- Posts
- 174
A couple of things I noted:
1. From the Trackman article: standard deviation is not "67% confidence interval". Surprising to see this mis-representaion from a tech company.
2. I'm assuming TM gives the "dynamic" face angle (i.e. the face angle at impact after taking into account the gear effect). I think the raw face angle (i.e. pre gear effect) is more useful when working on your swing. If the HMT tells me I have a toe hit, I know that will account for some of the observed left spin.
-
08-29-2013 10:36 PM #23
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- Melbourne, Land of Oz.
- Posts
- 1,535
The TM obviously uses "dynamic" because the number is calculated using other measured numbers and does not know/cannot calculate what the "actual" was. I can see your point about the different measurement and usefulness. This is why FS may not be linking the Ball and HMT data to get a calculated number.
Which is the dynamic and which is actual may be open to debate.
-
08-29-2013 11:43 PM #24
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Location
- Auckland
- Posts
- 174
Because TM clubhead values are derived from ball flight, they are obviously always going to be "correct" (or fit perfectly) with respect to the consequent ball flight. It will be fascinating to see how the 2 data sets differ (HMT vs TM derived).
Regarding horizontal ball direction + side spin, am I correct in assuming the dependent variables are face angle, clubhead path, and degree of off-centre hit (and consequent face deflection and if using a wood, the gear effect)? I guess AoA might have a very minor effect.
Does TM measure face impact location? If not, TM can not directly measure any of these dependant variables.
GC2 could presumably derive the same clubhead data that Trackman can, as the formulae are widely available?
-
08-29-2013 11:47 PM #25
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Location
- Auckland
- Posts
- 174
Is anybody aware from related forums of independent testing being done on the HMT using high speed photography? That is really the only way to fairly verify/dispute the data?
-
08-30-2013 12:03 AM #26
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Chicago
- Posts
- 3,687
While it might fit the ball flight laws, it might not be what really happened. Like I said, it's not a big deal when just working on your swing since you'll know you hit it on the heal or toe. But the simulation won't be as accurate since spin axis is estimated using this dynamic(estimated) face angle as part of the formula.
Does TM measure face impact location? If not, TM can not directly measure any of these dependant variables.
-
08-30-2013 07:30 AM #27
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- Melbourne, Land of Oz.
- Posts
- 1,535
Accuracy Tolerance
Club Head Velocity: +/- 0.75 mph
Swing Path In / Out: +/- 0.5 degrees
Swing Path Up /Down: +/- 0.5 degrees
Club Face Open /Closed: +/- 0.75 degrees
Club Face Angle: +/- 0.5 degrees
Club Face Lie Angle: +/- 0.25 degrees
Club Face Loft Angle: +/- 0.75 degrees
From FS website....and probably not standard deviation!!!
They would have used high speed cams.
-
08-30-2013 07:47 AM #28
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- Location
- Melbourne, Land of Oz.
- Posts
- 1,535
And yes it is about as independent as the TM numbers.
-
08-30-2013 08:04 AM #29
-
08-30-2013 08:09 AM #30
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Chicago
- Posts
- 3,687
CPA,
The HMT's camera is already high speed. They don't need to prove it with a super high speed cam. They can just allow users to see the HMT's actual captures. As for their published tolerances(FS or TM), that don't mean jack.
What's with the club face open/close tolerance? Shouldn't the club face angle be sufficient?
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Trackman at Rideauview
By leftylucas in forum Local StuffReplies: 7Last Post: 05-18-2012, 02:52 PM -
Trackman Worth it??
By Dirty Birdie in forum General Golf TalkReplies: 6Last Post: 04-28-2012, 12:46 AM -
Flightscope / Trackman clubface / spin
By ZMax in forum Home Simulators - GeneralReplies: 40Last Post: 01-28-2012, 09:07 PM -
Trackmanīs ten fundamentals
By Chieflongtee in forum Club Making & ComponentsReplies: 2Last Post: 10-29-2010, 09:27 PM -
PGA Goes High-Tech With Trackman
By gdavison961 in forum Tour TalkReplies: 0Last Post: 01-09-2008, 11:49 PM