NEW SkyTrak Launch Monitor

[CPA]

Disagree. Should be Trackman outdoors without wind etc. Tested against GC2 at same time. TM used as the control. Others then compared.

[Morini]

Yes outdoor could work as well, but there has to be absolutely no wind. If I was testing a skytrak outside and there was no wind, it would be versus my rangefinder and observed landing area first and foremost. I suppose that trackman is so accurate outdoors that it can serve as a proxy for actual measured results.

[ZMax]

Looking at the Japanese PDF that CPA posted, it appears the discrepancies in carry yardage was due mainly from the differences in LA and possibly a little wind. The SkyTrak's LA are consistently higher than TM's LA by 1.5-3 degrees. This could be due to setup or a problem with the SkyTrak itself.

If the SkyTrak's LA readings were all over the place compared to TM, then I could question the SkyTrak's LA accuracy. But it appears to be consistent. Also, some of TM's carry numbers don't jive with Flightscope's Trajectory Optimizer. SkyTrak's carry numbers were closer to Flightscope than TM's carry numbers, which makes me think there might have been some wind involved.

LA is relatively easy to measure. To be off by that much means either a problem with setup or the unit itself IMO. BS readings were very close and backspin numbers were close most of the time. Overall, not bad for a LM that will cost less than 1/4 of the GC2 or maybe even less.

[CPA]

I cannot understand why they posted that test. They had control of wind etc. Should they not have tried to get any outside agency to 0 influence.
Also should have physically measured carry and offline numbers and perhaps slow mo cam to verify launch angles.

[ZMax]

CPA, to do all that takes planning and a lot of work and people that know what they're doing.

[CPA]

Yeah I know Z. I presume the companies that make these things have these resources and skills. They are the ones using that test as a marketing tool.

[Ba2]

Disagree. Should be Trackman outdoors without wind etc. Tested against GC2 at same time. TM used as the control. Others then compared.

Wind is a big factor. Any indoor test with TM is not reliable. The best set up is TM outdoor without wind. I am familiar with the Skytrak unit and I know there has been robot tests done on this unit early in the morning without wind in a clear day and the results were pretty good.

[Ba2]

Looking at the Japanese PDF that CPA posted, it appears the discrepancies in carry yardage was due mainly from the differences in LA and possibly a little wind. The SkyTrak's LA are consistently higher than TM's LA by 1.5-3 degrees. This could be due to setup or a problem with the SkyTrak itself.

If the SkyTrak's LA readings were all over the place compared to TM, then I could question the SkyTrak's LA accuracy. But it appears to be consistent. Also, some of TM's carry numbers don't jive with Flightscope's Trajectory Optimizer. SkyTrak's carry numbers were closer to Flightscope than TM's carry numbers, which makes me think there might have been some wind involved.

LA is relatively easy to measure. To be off by that much means either a problem with setup or the unit itself IMO. BS readings were very close and backspin numbers were close most of the time. Overall, not bad for a LM that will cost less than 1/4 of the GC2 or maybe even less.

Great observations Zmax. Bias is likely caused by the set up. In this type of monitors LA is the easiest to measure, I doubt it is wrong.

[Dax]

Wind is a big factor. Any indoor test with TM is not reliable. The best set up is TM outdoor without wind. I am familiar with the Skytrak unit and I know there has been robot tests done on this unit early in the morning without wind in a clear day and the results were pretty good.

Ba2, very interested in your observation as to why TM indoors is not reliable?

[bubba22]

I agree that LA is much easier to measure than horizontal azumuth with the floor mounted units. My testing with Skytrak vs ProTee with respect to launch angle was spot on.

[Ba2]

Ba2, very interested in your observation as to why TM indoors is not reliable?

I have the latest TM. I hit against gc2 and SkyTrak all the time and what I observe is that the back spin is good indoor. In other words good consistency can be observed among the three. But side spin is really a problem. (Even with the metallic tape). All other params are good. So the shot shape cannot be determined accurately indoor. (Perhaps my set up is not good a bigger indoor area is needed with less metal around etc. But where I live space is a problem so I cannot test in a bigger indoor environment)

[CPA]

What are your room and TM setback dimensions

[Ba2]

What are your room and TM setback dimensions

3 mt wide. 6 mt long. 3mt height.

[CPA]

Interesting as TM now says min room length 5.5 meters

[Dax]

Ba2 my length from TM to net is almost identical to yours and my shots on the sim match what I am hitting on the course very well. Not a perfect measure and I likely will need to compare to other tech at some point, but perhaps a discussion for another thread as I don't want to take away from the,discussion here on what appears to sound like a very promising technology.

[bubba22]

I agree. TM indoors will be less accurate for sure. The sidespin would be the weakest. Ba2 how does Skytrak compare aginst GC2 and TM outdoors. We call TM outdoors the "gold standard" but in my opinion, nothing is perfect!

[Ba2]

Ba2 my length from TM to net is almost identical to yours and my shots on the sim match what I am hitting on the course very well. Not a perfect measure and I likely will need to compare to other tech at some point, but perhaps a discussion for another thread as I don't want to take away from the,discussion here on what appears to sound like a very promising technology.

Indeed Dax. Plus i look at just numbers not shot shape. TM finds the shot shape well but not to an accuracy of GC2.

[Ba2]

I agree. TM indoors will be less accurate for sure. The sidespin would be the weakest. Ba2 how does Skytrak compare aginst GC2 and TM outdoors. We call TM outdoors the "gold standard" but in my opinion, nothing is perfect!

I don't want to comment on accuracy. I will let guys like you who had been exposed to the device make the judgement themselves. I have been more than happy with its accuracy during my tests.

[Kball]

Any date as to when SkyTrak will go on sale?

[mthunt]

Here's a different question. I'm building a sim. The room is 20x16. The limitation of this or GC2 is playing with a lefties and righty and the need to turn it around. Foresight suggested 2 GC2's. Some ranges have a stance mat with a hitting mat on either side for left or right. Is it possible to set up a sim where the player stands in the middle and there's a LM on both sides thus 2 LM's? With the software allow this? Will the Protee SOftware allow this?

Thanks,
Mike

[zealott]

How about the smash factors that all the skytrak videos are using, club speed of 66MPh and ball speed of 103MPh?

[DjPiLL]

No club data?

[p3prouser]

Hey Z or bubba. This is pretty exciting stuff. What kind of testing did you guys do? Did you
Test the unit outside and compare the real ball flight to what is shown on the screen? Just really curious!

[ZMax]

Yes, tested outside also.

[p3prouser]

Yes, tested outside also.

cool. how about putts? does it register putts - for golf sim purposes?

[ZMax]

Not yet.

[ruka]

How about chips

[p3prouser]

thanks for your responses, Z!

when testing, did you find high lofted wedge shots not registering or registering incorrectly as the unit only captures launch angles up to 55 degrees? do you think this will be a big issue?

[p3prouser]

promotional pricing will be $1495. what do you guys think?

[Msuzippy]

promotional pricing will be $1495. what do you guys think?

About what we figured. I want to hear about their SIM plans.

Where did you get that price?