New Tiger Woods Launch Monitor

[larciel]

1 hour ago, cmatthews77 said:

 

Club data?!?  How much is this thing?

 

4g

[HiTrajLoSpin]

On 7/19/2021 at 4:00 PM, Krt22 said:

There is that for sure, but it absolutely has to help with the SNR  

Correct, as noted in one of Flightscope's patents:

 

A golf ball is generally a weak radar target due to its small size and composition; only a part of the incident signal energy reflects from the surface of the ball, and the remainder part propagates into the ball, refracting in the ball body and reflecting once more when it reaches the far surface of the ball. Thus, a golf ball can act as a lens to magnify the modulating effect of a feature on or near the surface of the ball. The feature can be a deliberate mark such as a small metal foil disk on the surface. 

 

The size of a feature on or near the surface of the golf ball is magnified to a measuring instrument on the opposing side of the golf ball. The magnifying effect applies only while the feature is on the side of the ball away from the observer or radar, and only in the zone that the lens allows. Thus the magnified feature will modulate the Doppler signal in a particular manner and will cause an increase in the amplitude of the Doppler return signal due to the increased apparent size. 

Edited July 20, 2021 by HiTrajLoSpin

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, HiTrajLoSpin said:

Correct, as noted in one of Flightscope's patents:

 

A golf ball is generally a weak radar target due to its small size and composition; only a part of the incident signal energy reflects from the surface of the ball, and the remainder part propagates into the ball, refracting in the ball body and reflecting once more when it reaches the far surface of the ball. Thus, a golf ball can act as a lens to magnify the modulating effect of a feature on or near the surface of the ball. The feature can be a deliberate mark such as a small metal foil disk on the surface. 

 

The size of a feature on or near the surface of the golf ball is magnified to a measuring instrument on the opposing side of the golf ball. The magnifying effect applies only while the feature is on the side of the ball away from the observer or radar, and only in the zone that the lens allows. Thus the magnified feature will modulate the Doppler signal in a particular manner and will cause an increase in the amplitude of the Doppler return signal due to the increased apparent size. 

 

That's a great find.

 

But keep in mind that it's the periodicity of the amplified signal return that lets the radar unit measure the spin.   Outdoors the dot isn't needed and the unit doesn't have any problem picking up the ball without it.  The question is really about how much that plays a part in the initial detection indoors where ambient noise might be higher in some environments.

Edited July 20, 2021 by Stuart_G

[karstens_ghost]

14 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

That's a great find.

 

But keep in mind that it's the periodicity of the amplified signal return that lets the radar unit measure the spin.   Outdoors the dot isn't needed and the unit doesn't have any problem picking up the ball without it.  The question is really about how much that plays a part in the initial detection indoors where ambient noise might be higher in some environments.

Not just that.

 

The likelihood of a material error in limited flight is why periodicity must be very accurate. If a radar picks up a ball on full flight, the calculation for spin is far more resilient to errors of single revolutions. If you hit a ball 3 metres, it's going to rotate just a few times. Miss one of those, and your calculation is way off.

 

In addition, single point can also assist with axial tilt; not just spin.

 

It's why I'm really starting to lean towards optics-based approaches.

[HiTrajLoSpin]

45 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

That's a great find.

 

But keep in mind that it's the periodicity of the amplified signal return that lets the radar unit measure the spin.   Outdoors the dot isn't needed and the unit doesn't have any problem picking up the ball without it.  The question is really about how much that plays a part in the initial detection indoors where ambient noise might be higher in some environments.

 

Assume that a golf ball is launched at 150 mi/hr with a spin rate of 2500 rpm: a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation shows a flight time of 68.2 ms to reach a net 15 ft away; during that time the ball only makes 2.84 revolutions.

 

Although Flightscope doesn't disclose how far it tracks a ball outdoors (without a net), an assumed tracking distance of 150 ft outdoors would mean that the ball's signal is measured 10x as long and executes 10x as many revolutions compared to indoors.

 

Perhaps the increase in detected (modulated) signal indoors produced using metal reflecting discs compensates for the reduced measurement time and total revolutions.

[Stuart_G]

 

10 hours ago, karstens_ghost said:

Not just that.

 

The likelihood of a material error in limited flight is why periodicity must be very accurate. If a radar picks up a ball on full flight, the calculation for spin is far more resilient to errors of single revolutions. If you hit a ball 3 metres, it's going to rotate just a few times. Miss one of those, and your calculation is way off.

 

It's not more accurate outdoors because of more revolutions, it's a completely different algorithm.

 

Quote

In addition, single point can also assist with axial tilt; not just spin.

 

Sorry, not following you here.

 

Quote

It's why I'm really starting to lean towards optics-based approaches.

 

The optical based approaches see even less ball flight (not even a full revolution for a driver) than the radar units and that doesn't seem to bother you. So why would it bother you for the radar?

 

 

10 hours ago, HiTrajLoSpin said:

 

Assume that a golf ball is launched at 150 mi/hr with a spin rate of 2500 rpm: a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation shows a flight time of 68.2 ms to reach a net 15 ft away; during that time the ball only makes 2.84 revolutions.

 

Correct.   TM reports that 2 revolutions are what it hopes to get to be able to get the most accurate spin measurements.  I doubt flightscope is any different.  That's why faster ball speed players can run into problems indoors with the driver and only 10' or so of flight.  It can come up short of the 2 revs.

 

Outdoors, the shape of the ball flight is used to calculate the spin and spin axis.  There is no metalic dot so there is no periodic amplification of the signal for the radar to count.   At least that's what I understand.  Some balls have seems that act a little like the dot in amplifying the return signal but that's hardly a reliable so I doubt the algorithms depend on it.  In theory there may be another dopler based method to measure the spin of the ball w/o a dot but I haven't heard of anything like that actually being used.

 

Basically we're talking about completely different algorithms and methods indoors and outdoors.

 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2021 by Stuart_G

[karstens_ghost]

> "The optical based approaches see even less ball flight (not even a full revolution for a driver) than the radar units and that doesn't seem to bother you. So why would it bother you for the radar?"

 

Because the optical approach has a set distance where it captures everything in those initial moments through high-speed optics. It's a set length from tee to loss-of-sight.

 

Radar relies on two variables for the same capture; rotation (stickers) _over_ a varied length from tee to flight aberration. This means that the longer the flight, the more reliable the number for radar. For optical, the distance it tracks is always less than the length of your swing, so spin data should be more consistent indoors the better optics get. Conversely, radar will get better and the need for 3+ metres flight might be reduced, but that's not a guarantee anytime soon.

 

For the indoor game, optical as a primary seems the right way forward.

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, karstens_ghost said:

Radar relies on two variables for the same capture; rotation (stickers) _over_ a varied length from tee to flight aberration. This means that the longer the flight, the more reliable the number for radar.

 

Not really.   The length is constant for each set-up.   Also, it only really means that less than the required number of revolutions can potentially reduce the accuracy of the total spin.  That doesn't mean more will increase the accuracy.   I can't say for sure, but it's just as possible that they ignore anything more than the the 2 revs if they've found that those two revs are all that's needed to get the desired accuracy.  Anything more would be inefficient and a waste of computational resources.

 

Both systems can use limited flight and have to be able to track a feature of the ball over that limited flight to measure the spin.  The only definite known limitation that should be of any concern is getting those two revs with the radar before it hits the screen.  Other than that, there is no inherent benefit in one methodology over the other that lends itself to better accuracy that anyone's been able to prove emperically.   It's always going to come down to the quality of the processing and algorithms  (remember the old Vector LM and how much problems it had with the image processing). 

 

[sdrthedj]

On 7/21/2021 at 7:48 AM, Stuart_G said:

 

Not really.   The length is constant for each set-up.   Also, it only really means that less than the required number of revolutions can potentially reduce the accuracy of the total spin.  That doesn't mean more will increase the accuracy.   I can't say for sure, but it's just as possible that they ignore anything more than the the 2 revs if they've found that those two revs are all that's needed to get the desired accuracy.  Anything more would be inefficient and a waste of computational resources.

 

Both systems can use limited flight and have to be able to track a feature of the ball over that limited flight to measure the spin.  The only definite known limitation that should be of any concern is getting those two revs with the radar before it hits the screen.  Other than that, there is no inherent benefit in one methodology over the other that lends itself to better accuracy that anyone's been able to prove emperically.   It's always going to come down to the quality of the processing and algorithms  (remember the old Vector LM and how much problems it had with the image processing). 

 

Given the known issue of spin axis and radar units indoors its hard to nit recommend photo LM’s if that is the primary use.  

Edited August 15, 2021 by sdrthedj

[Stuart_G]

3 hours ago, sdrthedj said:

Given the known issue of spin axis and radar units indoors its hard to nit recommend photo LM’s if that is the primary use.  

 

Total spin is still much more important when it comes to carry distances so it's a valid talking point.

 

And the only real deficiency in spin axis for radars is not being able to accurately compute gear effect (although I've yet to see how Trackman's new algorithms for that are working).  So really only an issue for the longer drivers and woods, not the scoring clubs where accuracy is more important.

 

And camera systems are far from perfect when it comes to spin axis.  That's just part of the problem of trying to generate 3d data from 2d images with minimal stereoscopic separation.

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Stuart_G

[mdmack]

I know at one time I read that these were supposed to ship in late September. While I know anytime someone gives a projected ship date you should not expect said item at that time I was just curious if anyone had heard anything through the grape vine. With the Launch Pro coming and all of the R10 discussion my interest in this product has peaked again. 

[mdmack]

13 hours ago, mdmack said:

I know at one time I read that these were supposed to ship in late September. While I know anytime someone gives a projected ship date you should not expect said item at that time I was just curious if anyone had heard anything through the grape vine. With the Launch Pro coming and all of the R10 discussion my interest in this product has peaked again. 

 

So I took it one step further and reached out via their website. I asked for any timeline update since "late September" seems unrealistic at this point, I asked about what metrics would be measured vs calculated, and what accuracy should be expected. I also asked about included software and 3rd party compatibility and this was the response I got. Not any info we don't already know, and very vague, but I still wanted to let you guys know what I was told. Based on the marketing and the vagueness of this response my hopes are not high that we will even see this thing before Christmas, at least not enough units to reach us "normal people." 

 

"

Hi Mihcael-

 

We plan to launch the KIT to market very soon as it’s in the final testing phase in Scotland with the R&A.  Your continued patience is much appreciated.

 

With the Full Swing Kit, you will be able to get 16 points of data feedback after each shot, as well as swing 1080p HD Video Capture.

 

1.       Carry Distance

2.       Total Distance

3.       Side Carry

4.       Side Total

5.       Apex

6.       Launch Angle

7.       Horizontal Angle (Ball Direction)

8.       Attack Angle

9.       Club Speed

10.   Ball Speed

11.   Smash Factor

12.   Club Path

13.   Club Face

14.   Spin

15.   Spin Axis

16.  Face to Path

 

Thank you again,

 

Grant Callahan"

[radiman]

So, with all of the Launch Pro/GC3 buzz, it got me thinking about the Full Swing Kit.  Hard to believe they started seeding this thing last December.  If I remember right they even took deposits didn't they?  At what point do they either release the product or refund those that reserved?  I have no skin in the game other than I have LM's on the mind with Winter coming in hot around the corner. 

[vq6shadow]

50 minutes ago, radiman said:

So, with all of the Launch Pro/GC3 buzz, it got me thinking about the Full Swing Kit.  Hard to believe they started seeding this thing last December.  If I remember right they even took deposits didn't they?  At what point do they either release the product or refund those that reserved?  I have no skin in the game other than I have LM's on the mind with Winter coming in hot around the corner. 

FSK lost all the positional advantage they would've had if they had released six months ago. Now they're screwed because everyone is going to wait, or ask for deposits back after seeing what the GC3 will provide.  Their only hope to recover what they have lost is to provide ball AND club data under the price of the GC3 package that gives both.

[radiman]

18 minutes ago, vq6shadow said:

FSK lost all the positional advantage they would've had if they had released six months ago. Now they're screwed because everyone is going to wait, or ask for deposits back after seeing what the GC3 will provide.  Their only hope to recover what they have lost is to provide ball AND club data under the price of the GC3 package that gives both.

They definitely lost the steam they built up.  When the GC3 first started getting teased I thought we would have two consumer LM's battling for market share.  But, being as though it doesn't seem like this will be launching anytime soon it's advantage Bushnell/Foresight at the moment. 

[sshadow2]

1 hour ago, radiman said:

So, with all of the Launch Pro/GC3 buzz, it got me thinking about the Full Swing Kit.  Hard to believe they started seeding this thing last December.  If I remember right they even took deposits didn't they?  At what point do they either release the product or refund those that reserved?  I have no skin in the game other than I have LM's on the mind with Winter coming in hot around the corner. 

You can call them for a refund any time before the release. I emailed them as they suggested, asking for a refund but they never replied so I called.

 

I did this when I discovered they needed even more distance than the Mevo+ and first heard about the BLP/GC3.

Edited September 29, 2021 by sshadow2

[whumber]

On 7/21/2021 at 5:30 AM, Stuart_G said:

Outdoors, the shape of the ball flight is used to calculate the spin and spin axis.  There is no metalic dot so there is no periodic amplification of the signal for the radar to count.   At least that's what I understand.  Some balls have seems that act a little like the dot in amplifying the return signal but that's hardly a reliable so I doubt the algorithms depend on it.  In theory there may be another dopler based method to measure the spin of the ball w/o a dot but I haven't heard of anything like that actually being used.

 

For outdoors, Trackman and Flightscope both look for the "spin harmonics" reflected back by the ball. Flightscope uses a different method of extracting the data, however, to get around Trackman's patent. Here's a link to Trackman's writeup on the process.

[vq6shadow]

Welp, the info on the GC3/LP is out and I can't say I'm overly impressed. $3K for the unit then subscription services up to $800/yr ($7K for everything in the GC3) for additional data even if camera-based won't beat FSK  at $4k if, IF, it still provides the 16 ball and club data points they've alluded to. Thoughts?

[radiman]

1 minute ago, vq6shadow said:

Welp, the info on the GC3/LP is out and I can't say I'm overly impressed. $3K for the unit then subscription services up to $800/yr ($7K for everything in the GC3) for additional data even if camera-based won't beat FSK  at $4k if, IF, it still provides the 16 ball and club data points they've alluded to. Thoughts?

Now would be a perfect time for them to post something, anything, to elude to an actual future release.  

[larciel]

2 hours ago, radiman said:

Now would be a perfect time for them to post something, anything, to elude to an actual future release.  

 

Yep. unless FSK has $$$$ subscription model as well. *GULP*

[Indygolf21]

13 hours ago, vq6shadow said:

Welp, the info on the GC3/LP is out and I can't say I'm overly impressed. $3K for the unit then subscription services up to $800/yr ($7K for everything in the GC3) for additional data even if camera-based won't beat FSK  at $4k if, IF, it still provides the 16 ball and club data points they've alluded to. Thoughts?

My thought is that in any event, radar still sucks for at-home use, and if it’s 4000 for FSK or 3000 + subscription for BLP, it’s an easy call for BLP for me. 

[Daniel Eason]

Why do the R&A need to approve the device of a launch monitor?????

[tvollm1]

I was wondering they same thing as well. I asked for a refund and got it right away. They said in the refund they were waiting for R&A approval and they foresee it heading to market in 4-6 weeks and sent me the screenshot of the numbers and a short video of Jon Rahm hitting balls in front of it at the US open. It is just strange they will not communicate this stuff to potential buyers or to the people that put in reservations. 

[radiman]

4 minutes ago, tvollm1 said:

I was wondering they same thing as well. I asked for a refund and got it right away. They said in the refund they were waiting for R&A approval and they foresee it heading to market in 4-6 weeks and sent me the screenshot of the numbers and a short video of Jon Rahm hitting balls in front of it at the US open. It is just strange they will not communicate this stuff to potential buyers or to the people that put in reservations. 

Was that 4-6 week timetable given to you recently?

[tvollm1]

I’m sorry, I just went back and checked my email and they never said anything about 4-6 weeks. I must have read that on another forum or something. The email just says they are close to launching the kit after 8 years of hard work and sent me the video and screenshot. Then it says it is in the final stages of testing with the R&A in Scotland. 

[Stuart_G]

On 10/4/2021 at 6:30 AM, Daniel Eason said:

Why do the R&A need to approve the device of a launch monitor?????

 

As far as conformance to the rules - they don't unless you want to use it during the course of play - which I'm pretty sure would be against the rules if the player accesses the data before the round is completed.

 

Other than that, it doesn't mean there couldn't be some other reason for the R+A to test it outside the context of conformance to the rules  - although I can't imagine what it might be.

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Stuart_G

[hammersia]

On 10/4/2021 at 11:30 AM, Daniel Eason said:

Why do the R&A need to approve the device of a launch monitor?????

I bet you a million billion dollars this is not true

[Rory4Pres]

Being that the gc3 is a great fit indoors or outdoors, they definitely have a huge leg up on Full Swing.  From what I've read, radar simulators are cheaper (not counting r&d) to manufacture than camera based simulators.  Based on that, I would expect Full Swing to either lower their price or offer some sweet software perks to suffice at the $4k price.  

 

Almost seems like their target audience would be selling 5 or 10 units to each golf course and the golf course either providing them for free or a small rental fee for range use.  

[Fairways_and_Greens]

I was in on the pre-order. Just bought the GC3 instead. Glad to hear the refunds are easy.

[vq6shadow]

14 hours ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

I was in on the pre-order. Just bought the GC3 instead. Glad to hear the refunds are easy.

Curious, if both the FSK and the GC3 were available at the same time, which would you choose?