Flightscope or TM indoor enclosure setups

[Wundej]

Hi all

Was interested to see what the guys with Flightscope or Trackman radar units are doing for their sim enclosures. They obviously need more distance from tee to screen but not sure how much less a GC2 or Skytrak setups are using tee to screen to get the impact where you want it on the screen.

I'm planning an addition and have an X2. I've been using the regular indoor firmware in my basement and have the net currently at the minimum distance from tee. SW and GW hit higher than the vertical wall (so essentially on the ceiling which I have a net protecting right now). It is a little less than 8' vertical.

Do you guys go with 10-12' high screens? I'd just rather not be hitting the ceiling if possible. I know I can go with a shorter tee to screen length with the short indoor mode but I'd like to give the radar as much room to measure as possible (or does it even matter) since some friends have pretty high ball speeds.

I'm probably overthinking it but since I'll be investing in the addition solely for a golf room, I'd like it planned properly.

Thanks for any feedback!

[Wundej]

Any thoughts? Sorry to bump, just looking for some feedback.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dax]

Sorry, I have not been on here too much lately if at all. Two young boys have really decreased my sim use. My set up sees me with about 12 to 13 feet tee to screen as I would like to get as much distance as possibly for my TM to see the ball (in particular with my driver as I spin it low). My wedges definitely hit the netting that I have protecting my ceiling and it really does not bother me at all. I probably hit my wedges at about 11 feet from the screen, but still hit my ceiling net. I put a small peice of foam sitting on top of my ceiling net to give a bit more resistance so that there is more weight on the net and I find the ball deflcts nicely into my screen with no issues.

[tlhammond5]

You will definitely have a lot of acurracy issues indoors with any radar based system. I have a TM that I only use outdoors. Unless I have at least 25' before the screen it's useless indoors. Even at 25' accuracy is questionable. I use a GC2 indoors and I only have about 12' to my screen. The GC2 doesn't even need that much room. If you have room to swing the club, the GC2 has room to read the shot. GC2 will be more accurate indoors than any radar based unit, regardless of space.

[Dax]

Not to take away from the thread, but do you have data to support your analysis? After years on these forums and looking through many posts and comparisons you are the first to make such a bold statement. The only known isssue was one involving a certain gear effect with driver and that was a number of years ago.

[penrose]

I went thru the entire flightscope, trackman, skytrak last year and came to the same conclusion as tlhammond5....skytrak, gc2 indoors and flightscope and trackman outdoors. Now I did see a nice setup on youtube with trackman indoors but the dude spent 70,000 on the room and had trackman work with his builder.

[tlhammond5]

Not to take away from the thread, but do you have data to support your analysis? After years on these forums and looking through many posts and comparisons you are the first to make such a bold statement. The only known isssue was one involving a certain gear effect with driver and that was a number of years ago.

I'm not sure if you're asking this of me or someone else, but I'm certainly not the only one on here to make this claim. Even Flightscope and TM will tell you need a large hitting area to ensure accuracy indoors. I don't remember the actual percentage off the top of my head, but GC2 is like 2% more accurate indoors than either of the radar based units. Outdoors is a totally different story.

[Dax]

I'm not sure if you're asking this of me or someone else, but I'm certainly not the only one on here to make this claim. Even Flightscope and TM will tell you need a large hitting area to ensure accuracy indoors. I don't remember the actual percentage off the top of my head, but GC2 is like 2% more accurate indoors than either of the radar based units. Outdoors is a totally different story.

my question was directed at your claim - That at 25 feet accuracy is questionable. I think everyone knows radar needs a larger footprint than camera based system, but I'm not sure of anyone that has 25 feet from tee to screen as this would need another 7 to 9 feet behind the ball. I believe what TrackMan and flightscope say is that they prefer a minimum of 10 feet from tee to screen to get accurate measurements and that you need to put a marker on the ball.

The 2% claim is also something that I have never read before either (although I am sure the math on the new GCQ that I am reading about might get prove better in terms of accuracy).

I will say that nothing is perfect indoors, but I would hope that when you do post something you base that in fact, as I have read huge debate on this issue without any clear definitive answer anywhere over all the years that I have been on this and other forums. What I do know is that when I am practising on TM, what I get in terms of my swing shot and distances is very accurate to my actual game and I can take my distances to the course and be very happy with my results, which I understand is something very similar to what people feel they get with their CG2 as well.

Please note that all this discussion was CG2 vs TM3 etc and I am not sure I have seen any comparisons with TM4, which I believe can shave off two feet or so behind the ball and we also have the new CGQ as well.

[goatbarn]

When I had a Flightscope I talked with their customer service a bunch on this. They (at the time) recommended 13' minimum ball flight (tee to screen), with 9' minimum distance from ball to radar.

The longer ball flight, the more accurate the results. The only thing the radar needs the extra room for is to narrow down on spin.

Launch, speed, azimuth...etc. can all be measured very quickly by the radar, much quicker than 13' of ball flight. It's the driver spin at very high ball speeds that needs the extra ball flight.

Trackman has always been at or closer than Flightscope on these requirements...so not 25'.

The radar needs to see the signal bounced off the metallic sticker at least twice before it hits the screen. You can do the math, but the faster the ball is going, with low enough spin...13' becomes a problem.

Now with Flightscope's short indoor mode I don't know what its doing in order to accurately extrapolate the limited spin info on high speed shots.

[goatbarn]

Oh and I should add that radar cannot pick up the spin axis (or shot shape) when used indoors. If you have 40+ yards of flight, it will however include the small amount of ball flight curvature in the calculations to better depict shot shape.

Currently, from my understanding, these doppler radar units calculate spin axis by using the measured club data + ball azimuth to deduce which way the ball is spinning. Further, because it can't "see" the entire flight, it also will not add any spin axis for off center hits, meaning no gear effect (horizontal) on ANY shots, not just driver shots.

[Dax]

Goatbarn you are correct, based off a TM chart, if your ball speed is 150mph, then you need to spin the ball greater than 1300rpm in order for radar to get a reading at 15 feet. At 12 feet you need to spin greater than 1650 rpm and at 10 feet you need to spin greater than 2000 rpm. My lowest spin is about 1800 rpm and my max ball speed (rare is around 160 mph), which is why I usually try to tee up my driver no less than 12 feet tee to screen. This brings TM closer to my tee position, but give that I am using my driver I am still able to capture club data most of the time. Thus for me I am sacrificing getting club head data at impact in order to ensure I get as accurate reads of the ball when I use my driver. One thing I have noticed for sure is that I am getting older and my ball speeds are coming down.

The radar needs to see the metalic dot and thus you meed 1.5 revolutions of the ball in order to get good readings.

[mthunt]

Also, Dax has a TM3. What does thammond have. Might make a difference. Myself, I've tested Flightscope indoors and I'm pretty sure it was tracking the ball after it hit the screen. The ball would go straight then start to curve after hitting the screen. Indoors, I'm a believer in the GC2. Outside, radar all day

[mthunt]

Also, Dax has a TM3. What does thammond have. Might make a difference. Myself, I've tested Flightscope indoors and I'm pretty sure it was tracking the ball after it hit the screen. The ball would go straight then start to curve after hitting the screen. Indoors, I'm a believer in the GC2. Outside, radar all day

[Wundej]

You will definitely have a lot of acurracy issues indoors with any radar based system. I have a TM that I only use outdoors. Unless I have at least 25' before the screen it's useless indoors. Even at 25' accuracy is questionable. I use a GC2 indoors and I only have about 12' to my screen. The GC2 doesn't even need that much room. If you have room to swing the club, the GC2 has room to read the shot. GC2 will be more accurate indoors than any radar based unit, regardless of space.

No offense, but I didn't ask for anyone to tell me I'm using the wrong hardware. This is the enclosure sub forum and that is what I'm asking about. There are many other threads to argue over which is better. I know the limitations of indoor radar, etc. I have an X2 and I want club data. I don't swing 120mph. I'm not buying a GC2 and HMT. It's a waste of money IMO. The difference in accuracy is fine for me.

Please don't take this post the wrong way, but most of us already understand the technology and that discussion is for a different thread.

[Wundej]

Sorry, I have not been on here too much lately if at all. Two young boys have really decreased my sim use. My set up sees me with about 12 to 13 feet tee to screen as I would like to get as much distance as possibly for my TM to see the ball (in particular with my driver as I spin it low). My wedges definitely hit the netting that I have protecting my ceiling and it really does not bother me at all. I probably hit my wedges at about 11 feet from the screen, but still hit my ceiling net. I put a small peice of foam sitting on top of my ceiling net to give a bit more resistance so that there is more weight on the net and I find the ball deflcts nicely into my screen with no issues.

Can you share a pic of your setup in the area you are talking about, curious of what netting you are using? I was considering coming at a 45* angle from the top of the screen for a foot or two to help deaden the ball a bit, may work out better with the foam though.

Thanks for the reply, really appreciate the feedback.

[Dax]

I will try and take a picture and post. Essentially, you need to remember the netting will sag down a little. Also, I am using archery netting which is pretty substantial in terms of protection and weight. I suspect I don't need the additional foam piece, but it's there now.

I do have pics posted here somewhere on my set up, but will try and add specific pictures to this thread.