Garmin Approach R50. All-in-one optical LM @ $5K.

[Golfcrzy]

9 hours ago, txbadger said:

done

 

https://www.amazon.com/Universal-Telescopic-Retractable-Extendable-Precision/dp/B0CNYJWY61/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2P9E9YEXJ1LKN&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.4TZ7tUOGaCLjn21afEBjLlp4uoLVC8OJlesqM6Z71RP9M6n1HvcLYtbnm6OyKtjK8WpknmtC3kYljJtKnY7qWtUpPYnUYEmzfrsKCl9gHFpVDZMq1WWBbHqefcB7bTaAUaLA2B3LEnz1vRMxHj_CUUjNlsSdqd7uGLUWjF579PFO_tIPXDmPBdA-jDOKTPpiFvpxSJ8eSBsnvboIYx1R-ZV1Ya98zssJanoGmKyQOFk.KQuok9dL0NeAcsa9a5c57pPznMtTycyf9O0CCoqUyzk&dib_tag=se&keywords=ipad+touch+screen+pointer+long&qid=1732080341&sprefix=long+ipad+touc%2Caps%2C148&sr=8-3

 

 

Very clever! 
 

But still, need a legit remote input method. 

[Rory4Pres]

the 3.75 x 8" hitting window is a major issue for anyone with a smaller mat setup (ie 4' x 5' or less).  For example, there's no 1 specific place you can fit your body based on the shot required. (driver and lob wedge have very different setups)

 

the hitting window for the uneekor eye mini is 12" x 8" for example.  I feel like I use every bit of that when using it.

Edited November 20, 2024 by Rory4Pres

[Muffy]

1 hour ago, Rory4Pres said:

the 3.75 x 8" hitting window is a major issue for anyone with a smaller mat setup (ie 4' x 5' or less).  For example, there's no 1 specific place you can fit your body based on the shot required. (driver and lob wedge have very different setups)

 

the hitting window for the uneekor eye mini is 12" x 8" for example.  I feel like I use every bit of that when using it.

Possibly you'll be re-positioning the R50, rather than the golfer, in that case.    Otherwise, that one area in the hitting mat is going to be worn down fairly fast.      If it was me, I'd always want club data..........

[Streuner]

On 11/16/2024 at 5:56 PM, enfuego said:

Are they doing measured face data points with only 1 dot and the impact camera? Foresight needs 4 dots to do anything more than angle of attack and path.

GC3 is not able to detect dynamic lie angle. And that is why the GC3 is using one single sticker on the club head. That is the main difference to the GC4. The 4 stickers you have to use are for detecting dynamic lie angle and impact location. So apples to apples, GC3 does not give you dynamic lie as well, no difference to R50 and you need the Gold Level Package to get the club head data without dynamic loft. 

Edited November 21, 2024 by Streuner

[Streuner]

Double Post

Edited November 21, 2024 by Streuner
Double post

[Streuner]

Double Post

Edited November 21, 2024 by Streuner

[vanderputts]

Was able to test the R50 side by side with Trackman.

 

Initial Review TLDR: This thing is awesome with few drawbacks. The best parts for me are that its very accurate, it is very easy to use / quick, and that as a standalone, you can play just about any course in the world (especially your local or dream courses) in minutes without anything else required.

 

 

I took the R50 straight to Puetz here in Seattle to test it head-to-head with their Trackman setup. We hit a few hundred balls  and even played a few holes - including setting up a mock round on the Garmin with HTH and Trackman on their fitting setup playing Bethpage Black.

 

 

Pointers:

1. Outdoor range in an enclosed hitting bay
2. The Trackman lives here for Fittings
3. Hitting the same exact Titleist balls they use for Trackman fittings, not standard Range balls
4. Myself + 3 of the staff tested it together

1. Setup

This was the first time firing up the R50. Turned it on, hopped on the Range's wifi, logged into my Garmin account, and we were hitting balls within minutes from initial boot. It was seriously that easy. We even downloaded a software update that only took 5 minutes to complete. 

 

2. Ease of Use

The screen has major benefits. The Garmin software is laid out well and the screen is as responsive as any modern tablet. Its bright, its easy to change what data your seeing, and works great. The split screen mode is a highlight with data on one side and shot shape on the other. When playing courses, changing shot alignment takes 2 seconds without the need to walk over and adjust from the desk. Just hit the flyover button and go.

 

3. Shot shape

We had 4 players including myself testing, 3 were staff. We hit a lot of great shots but plenty of thin & fat - it never miscalculated the entire session. It never even missed a ball. All of the shot shapes were correct.

Not our best shots of course but good for field research I guess.

 

 

4. Accuracy - benchmarking against the Trackman (ball data)

I used my Driver, 7 wood, 7 iron, and 54* to test in unison between the R50 and Trackman. The staff used similar clubs and we rotated through the group. Every shot was within a few hundred RPM on spin, 1ish mph, and ball flight/trajectory/etc were all very close. In might be a stretch but the staff actually believe the R50 may have been more accurate in some cases due to the conditions (night time/cold/etc).

 

Shot for shot comparisons:

Garmin:

Trackman:

_________________________________

Garmin:

Trackman:

_________________________________

Garmin:

Trackman:

 

List Comparison of a few shots starting from the top down - sorry I didn't get all the data in one photo, but look at the ball speed and spin rates. Its very close.

 

We were having too much fun with it.

 

Trackman:

 

All of the ball data is very comparable...

 

5. Playing Courses on HTH

 

This is probably my favorite part now that accuracy is out of the way. Being able to play any course at home or on the range without having to set up any other gear. Just download the course and go.

 

We decided to play a few holes using only the R50. Once you fire up HTH, it automatically brings up the courses nearby which can be downloaded in seconds.

 

 

The graphics are accurate and work. They've used the data well and the courses are laid out digitally in an acceptable manner as they are real life. All of the things you would expect to see are there and from what I could tell the greens are sloped.

 

After playing a few holes at our local muni that we were all familiar with, we decided to fire up a course comparison to see if the accuracy data we found in the range session would still be the same "on the course".

 

Here's the starting hole on Bethpage Black on R50/HTH vs Trackman:

Garmin/HTH:

Trackman:

 

 

Field Notes:

• The Garmin reads extremely fast. In many cases it was faster than the Trackman. The data is instantaneous then the shot pops up before your head is able to turn to see the shot itself. Its quick.
• We never had a misread or missed shot
• The touchscreen is very quick, no lag, and works with gloves
• Changing shot line "on the course" takes seconds, made it really easy for multiple players to hit into the green from different locations/clubs
• Multi-player works great. With multiple players, it does allow rotation based on distance to the hole. We had four players playing at once between both setups and it was just like playing a round albeit in a hitting bay, outdoors, on a mat.

 

I can write more but might be easier to just Q&A - Its excellent and I couldn't be happier.  

Edited November 21, 2024 by vanderputts

[vanderputts]

Wanted to add, I had the Uneekor EML in the shopping cart and then this dropped.

 

Most of everything we did today at the range would not really have been possible with that or even the EM/equivalent. This will be coming with me on golf trips from now on for a lot of good and fun reasons.

 

Obviously we had a blast testing it and comparing it to the Trackman with some pretty surprising results. It was insanely accurate in comparison.

 

That aside, being able to quickly download any course we wanted and start playing in minutes was a huge bonus and really shouldn't be overlooked, its one of the biggest reasons I think this standalone approach with minimal subscription costs is such a winner. Bonus points for how easy and quick it is to use and setup. You could genuinely take this to the range with a few friends during the winter and be playing Augusta in minutes and have a great time. 

 

Wanted to also state how accurate it was with chipping and bunkers which has been a hit or miss scenario with other LMs. It was very accurate and added to the experience instead of the dreaded LM over or under corrected - which was consistent between players of different levels and shots between the group.

 

Didn't test putting. Will do soon. The grid provided by HTH on the greens was relatively accurate on the courses I'm familiar with though. 

 

My home golf sim is almost done with construction - will test GS Pro/indoors/etc soon enough.

Edited November 21, 2024 by vanderputts

[Streuner]

Thank you very much. I am very close from ordering this maschine for my Garage SIM. My MEVO Plus is having sometimes (First world) problems because the Lack of space. With the Garmin no flight space to the Screen needed. 
 

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Streuner said:

GC3 is not able to detect dynamic lie angle. And that is why the GC3 is using one single sticker on the club head. That is the main difference to the GC4. The 4 stickers you have to use are for detecting dynamic lie angle and impact location. So apples to apples, GC3 does not give you dynamic lie as well, no difference to R50 and you need the Gold Level Package to get the club head data without dynamic loft. 

 

The R50 almost surely uses an algorithm for face angle, as I don't think it'll actually measure that from a single dot. I think it's doing the math with an algorithm like the radar units do to calculate a face angle (and loft).

 

3 hours ago, vanderputts said:

That aside, being able to quickly download any course we wanted and start playing in minutes was a huge bonus and really shouldn't be overlooked, its one of the biggest reasons I think this standalone approach with minimal subscription costs is such a winner. Bonus points for how easy and quick it is to use and setup. You could genuinely take this to the range with a few friends during the winter and be playing Augusta in minutes and have a great time.

 

How many courses can "stay" on the device? If you go to a range or some place without WiFi, you can still use the R50, right, and play those previously downloaded courses?

[acekun]

@vanderputtsWere you able to test the club data?

 

Received mine last night and went straight to a simulator that uses GC Hawk.

My takeaways:

• The screen is great
• The hitting area is quite small -- I don't think I would ever use it at a range where there is grass. You'd have to constantly move the monitor around
• The ball data basically matched the GC Hawk. Ball speed, launch, spin, etc.  But it measured shorter on carry distance -- not sure if that was the settings or if they just use different algorithms. But iron shots were 2-3 yards shorter on R50 and 7-9 yards shorter with driver. 
• Could not really compare on the club data, which was disappointing. This is my biggest question mark.  The GC Hawk was not reading the club with the R50 dot on the club (when a club had 4 GC stickers on it). Sometimes GC Hawk could read the club with only the R50 dot -- the clubhead speed was consistent with both. 

[Rory4Pres]

15 hours ago, Muffy said:

Possibly you'll be re-positioning the R50, rather than the golfer, in that case.    Otherwise, that one area in the hitting mat is going to be worn down fairly fast.      If it was me, I'd always want club data..........

The moment you do that, you are messing with the system's alignment.  That opens a can of worms where you'll constantly be going left or right of your target because of the realignment.

 

I was prepared to offload my eye mini for this and that single detail killed it for me.  

 

Interesting that all these youtubers with free test trials of the R50's for their reviews have brought little to no light of this serious dilemma for a large amount of potential customers. 

[vanderputts]

 

35 minutes ago, Rory4Pres said:

The moment you do that, you are messing with the system's alignment.  That opens a can of worms where you'll constantly be going left or right of your target because of the realignment.

 

I was prepared to offload my eye mini for this and that single detail killed it for me.  

 

Interesting that all these youtubers with free test trials of the R50's for their reviews have brought little to no light of this serious dilemma for a large amount of potential customers. 

Alignment wasn’t an issue at all even for all of us using it for the first time.

 

We just lined it up parallel to the mat.  Ran the calibration once to 0 and went. It took seconds and didn’t need to be realigned after moving multiple times. Mat is square, set it up square 

Edited November 21, 2024 by vanderputts

[yinzerniner]

36 minutes ago, Rory4Pres said:

The moment you do that, you are messing with the system's alignment.  That opens a can of worms where you'll constantly be going left or right of your target because of the realignment.

 

I was prepared to offload my eye mini for this and that single detail killed it for me.  

 

Interesting that all these youtubers with free test trials of the R50's for their reviews have brought little to no light of this serious dilemma for a large amount of potential customers. 

Think your concern about re-positioning and alignment is somewhat overblown as keeping the front of the unit aligned correctly to target is pretty easy - just make sure it's parallel to club path which is easily achievable with a strip of tape or an alignment stick, and the zeroing/alignment procedure is super quick from setup videos. Granted for a small mat the hitting area will be worn a bit quicker given its small size, but then just moving the unit up a few inches forward or backward on a parallel line is no different than adjusting your stance for the larger hitting area of other launch monitors.

 

That being said, it seems like one reviewer's unit has shown some connecting, shot error and HDMI output issues - could possibly be due to the streaming setup or just a bad unit, but those concerns are much larger IMO than moving the unit and keeping alignment (quick rundown at the beginning, then a lot of issues at the end when he reverts back to Home Tee Hero)

 

NOTE: Very long video.

 

 

If they can figure out the kinks with firmware updates, and it operates similarly to how @vanderputts described in real-world testing it seems like a no-brainer for first-time buyers who want to have as simple a SIM setup as possible.

Edited November 21, 2024 by yinzerniner

[Rory4Pres]

3 minutes ago, yinzerniner said:

Think your concern about re-positioning and alignment is somewhat overblown as keeping the front of the unit aligned correctly to target is pretty easy - just make sure it's parallel to club path which is easily achievable with a strip of tape or an alignment stick, and the zeroing/alignment procedure is super quick from setup videos. Granted for a small mat the hitting area will be worn a bit quicker given its small size, but then just moving the unit up a few inches forward or backward on a parallel line is no different than adjusting your stance for the larger hitting area of other launch monitors.

 

That being said, it seems like one reviewer's unit has shown some connecting and HDMI output issues - could possibly be due to the streaming setup or just a bad unit, but those concerns are much larger IMO than moving the unit and keeping alignment (quick rundown at the beginning, then a lot of issues at the end when he reverts back to Home Tee Hero)

 

NOTE: Very long video.

 

 

If they can figure out the kinks with firmware updates, and it operates similarly to how @vanderputts described in real-world testing it seems like a no-brainer for first-time buyers who want to have as simple a SIM setup as possible.

 

The connection issues will be fixed with firmware updates.  The small hitting window is permanent. 

 

As I stated earlier, my uneekor eye mini 12" x 8" hitting window is already small enough.  Cut that into 1/3rd and it'd be the single most annoying thing about a simulator.  It's a detail a lot of people are going to overlook until they get it and grow to hate it after the honeymoon phase wears off.

[vanderputts]

The hitting area was fine, not really an issue for any of the couple hundred shots we hit. 
 

if you’re out of the window, the screen points you to where the ball needs to move to. Move the ball. Hit. 
 

Wasn’t really a factor at all between our group

[Rory4Pres]

5 minutes ago, vanderputts said:

The hitting area was fine, not really an issue for any of the couple hundred shots we hit. 
 

if you’re out of the window, the screen points you to where the ball needs to move to. Move the ball. Hit. 
 

Wasn’t really a factor at all between our group

how big is your hitting mat?

[vanderputts]

2 hours ago, Rory4Pres said:

how big is your hitting mat?

 

This was in a professional hitting bay in the photos above. I think these are Fiber Built Mats but could be wrong, look to be about 6x4?

 

The hitting area was perfectly fine with the Garmin - I don't know the size but it wasn't a factor across 4 players and hundreds of balls. Would probably be the same situation across many other camera LMs - GC3/Quad/etc. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, vanderputts said:

Would probably be the same situation across many other camera LMs - GC3/Quad/etc. 

 

The R50 is a smaller area than the GC3 and much smaller than the GCQ/MAX.

[vanderputts]

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

The R50 is a smaller area than the GC3 and much smaller than the GCQ/MAX.

do we have measurements for each?

 

From hitting on both my friends GC3 & Quad setups, I didn’t find anything really different than with the R50.

[txbadger]

29 minutes ago, vanderputts said:

do we have measurements for each?

 

From hitting on both my friends GC3 & Quad setups, I didn’t find anything really different than with the R50.

I have a GC Quad and its about 14"x14" with ball and club data.  I think 14"x18" with just ball, so quite a bit larger.    

 

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, vanderputts said:

do we have measurements for each?

 

45 minutes ago, txbadger said:

I have a GC Quad and its about 14"x14" with ball and club data.  I think 14"x18" with just ball, so quite a bit larger.    

 

I think I've read that the R50 is 3.5" x 8" or something.

[Streuner]

I did pull the trigger… 7-10 days delivery 

[RCGA]

22 hours ago, iacas said:

 

The R50 almost surely uses an algorithm for face angle, as I don't think it'll actually measure that from a single dot. I think it's doing the math with an algorithm like the radar units do to calculate a face angle (and loft).

 

 

Garmin's own documentation states a margin of error for face angle of +/- 2*

 

That's completely unreliable and you'd be more accurate guessing the face angle based off of club path, ball flight and spin.

[vanderputts]

2 hours ago, RCGA said:

 

Garmin's own documentation states a margin of error for face angle of +/- 2*

 

That's completely unreliable and you'd be more accurate guessing the face angle based off of club path, ball flight and spin.

 

I haven't tested club data yet but the ball data was good. 

 

Is that stated somewhere in the manual? The documentation provides decent instructions but I can't find any official measurements or statements such as this 

Edited November 22, 2024 by vanderputts

[iacas]

3 hours ago, RCGA said:

Garmin's own documentation states a margin of error for face angle of +/- 2*

 

That's completely unreliable and you'd be more accurate guessing the face angle based off of club path, ball flight and spin.

 

Probably because they can't measure the face, so knowing the spin axis, path, start direction of the ball, etc… they can run it through an algorithm to calculate the face (and loft). The ± 2° is probably to cover off on toe and heel hits.

 

But, yeah. The GCQuad won't even tell you a face angle with a single dot, because it can't measure it. But I know if the ball starts 1° right and the path is 4° right, the face was probably about 0.5° open… IF the spin axis lines up. If the spin axis is right with those start lines, then I know the face was more open than that and the player hit it out of the heel, resulting in a left start line and the fade spin axis.

 

So, okay… I'm chalking some of their "data" up as being calculated not measured.

[MattC555]

Thanks so much vanderputts for the review.  I really appreciate it.  This one might check all of the boxes for me. 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

Thanks so much vanderputts for the review.  I really appreciate it.  This one might check all of the boxes for me. 

 

I'm still interested in the overall accuracy. Not just ball data, but club data too.

 

The one video said that he was checking it against a Quad, but then a software update rendered it so he couldn't do that anymore (he thought the IR emitters might have interfered with each other after the update IIRC). But I'm still curious if something like that can be done. I've yet to see a really good accuracy test.

 

And there's a video of a guy using the R50 with GSPro and it missing a lot of putts or tee shots after putts. Like, it has a hard time switching to or out of putting mode or something. But that may be a GSPro thing, too.

 

 

Pinned comment is:

 

[j0nesy]

Curious if this would work off grass? If it does, that would be another feather in its cap and a blow to Foresight offerings.... Vanderputts, can you test this?

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, j0nesy said:

Curious if this would work off grass? If it does, that would be another feather in its cap and a blow to Foresight offerings.... Vanderputts, can you test this?

 

Why wouldn't it work off grass? The small hitting area is a bit of an issue, I'd think, though. You may be moving the unit pretty often, which means re-aligning too.